*»5 


hhhhI 


iv  (■■'•vh'-vV'i  .ivy. ■•'.•.'■• 


fflBHM 


H 


H 


. 


rv  -n-o  nvT/-i-ciin/-\TVT     ivr      t  v 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


5//^. 


BL  100  .'P7  1886 
Piatt,  W.  H.  1821-1898 
The  philosophy  of  the 
supernatural 


NvU^ 


She  gtehop  3?aMach  lectures,  1886 


THE 

/ 

PHILOSOPHY 

OF 


THE    SUPERNATURAL 


BY 


W.  H.  PLATT,  D.  D.f  LL.  D. 

RECTOR   OF    ST.  PAUL'S   CHURCH 
ROCHESTER,    N.  Y. 


NEW    YORK 

E.  P.  DUTTON  &  COMPANY 

31    WEST  TWENTY-THIRD  ST. 
1886. 


Copyright 
W.  H.  PLATT 

1886 


THE  BISHOP  PADDOCK  LECTURES. 


In  the  summer  of  the  year  1880,  George  A.  Jarvis  of 
Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,  moved  by  his  sense  of  the  great  good  which 
might  thereby  accrue  to  the  cause  of  Christ  and  to  the 
Church,  of  which  he  was  an  ever  grateful  member,  gave  to 
the  General  Theological  Seminary  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  certain  securities  exceeding  in  value  eleven 
thousand  dollars  for  the  foundation  and  maintenance  of  a 
Lectureship  in  said  Seminary. 

Out  of  love  to  a  former  Pastor  and  enduring  friend,  the 
Rt.  Rev.  Benjamin  Henry  Paddock,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  Massa- 
chusetts, he  named  his  Foundation  "  The  Bishop  Paddock 
Lectureship." 

The  deed  of  trust  declares  that : 

"  The  subjects  of  the  Lectures  shall  be  such  as  appertain 
to  the  defence  of  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  revealed 
in  the  Holy  Bible  and  illustrated  in  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  against  the  varying  errors  of  the  day,  whether  mate- 
rialistic, rationalistic,  or  professedly  religious,  and  also  to  its 
defence  and  confirmation  in  respect  of  such  central  truths 
as  the  Trinity,  the  Atonement,  Justification  and  the  Inspira- 
tion of  the  Word  of  God  and  of  such  centrai  facts  as  the 
Church's  Divine  Order  and  Sacraments,  her  historical  Refor- 
mation and  her  rights  and  powers  as  a  pure  and  National 
Church.  And  other  subjects  may  be  chosen  if  unanimously 
approved  by  the  Board  of  Appointment  as  being  both  timely 
and  also  within  the  true  intent  of  this  Lectureship." 

Under  the  appointment  of  the  Board  created  by  the  Trust, 
viz.,  the  Dean  of  the  General  Theological  Seminary  and  the 
Bishops  respectively  of  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  and 
Long  Island,  the  Rev.  W.  H.  Piatt,  D.D.,  LL.  D.,  Rector  of 
St.  Paul's  Church,  Rochester,  N.  Y.,  delivered  the  Lectures 
for  the  year  1886,  contained  in  this  volume. 


WORKS  BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR. 


I.     Handbook  of  Art  Culture. 

II.     The  Influence  of  Religion  in  the  Development 
of  Jurisprudence. 

III.  Legal  Ethics,  or,  the  Unity  of  Law. 

IV.  God    Out    and    Man    In,    ok,    Replies   to    R.    G. 

Ingersoll. 

V.     After   Death — What  ?   or,  the  Immortality  of 
the  Soul. 


NOTE. 


The  Lecturer  is  unable,  in  publishing  these  lectures,  to 
reproduce  the  popular  form  of  illustrations,  that  were  al- 
lowable in  the  freedom  of  their  extemporaneous  delivery. 
His  further  revision  of  them  has  been  impossible  under  the 
pressure  of  unassisted  daily  Lenten  services  and  lectures, 
both  in  and  out  of  his  own  parish.  It  is  his  hope,  at  no 
very  distant  day,  to  be  able  to  give  his  subject  a  more  ex- 
tended and  critical  discussion;  but,  lest  the  realization  of 
that  hope  should  be  unexpectedly  delayed,  immediate  use 
has  been  made  of  such  supplemental  matter  from  his  other 
lectures,  essays  and  books,  whether  published  or  unpublished, 
as  was  thought  to  complete  and  strengthen  his  present  argu- 
ment. With  the  most  careful  proof-reading  possible  under 
the  circumstances,  the  author  discovers  errors  which  every 

scholar  will  readily  correct  for  himself. 

W.   H.  P. 

Easter  Monday, 
Rochester,  1886. 


ANALYSIS   OF  CONTENTS. 


PAGE. 


I.  Supernatural  Power.  Lect.  I.      i 

i.  Facts  imply  a  Factor.  2 

2.  Factor  implies  Power.  8 

3.  Power  is  supernatural.  9 

4.  Supernatural  Power  manifests.  19 

(a)  Causative  phenomena. 

(b)  Derivative  phenomena. 

Eirst. — Life  from  life.  27 

Second. — Will  from  will.  30 

Third. — Mind  from  mind.  32 

Fourth. — Consciousness  from  consciousness  33 

Fifth. — Personality  from  personality.  36 

(c)  A  great  subsequent  proves  a  greater  antecedent.  40 

(d)  A  small  antecedent  proves  a  smaller  subsequent.  49 

5.  Supernatural  Power  is  one  Being.  64 

II.  Methods  of  Supernatural  Power.  Lect.  II.  69 

1.  Method  as  related  to  miracles. 

2.  Method  as  related  to  providence. 

3.  Method  as  related  to  Law. 

4.  Method  as  related  to  creation. 
(a)   Inorganic       (b)   Organic. 

5.  Method  as  related  to  evolution. 
(a)  as  a  process,     (b)  as  a  method. 

6.  Method  as  seen  in  correlation. 
(a)   Direct,     (b)   Inverse. 

7.  Method  of  Correlation  of  Force.    Lect.  VI.   267 
(a)  Unconscious,     (b)  Conscious. 

8.  Method  of  Persistence.  Lect.  VII.  306 

(a)  of  consciousness,      {b)  of  force,     {c)  of  soul. 


69 

73 

74 

Lect.  III. 

113 

Lect.  IV. 

167 

Lect.  V. 

252 

ERRATA 


Page  15 — Second  line  from  top,  read  the  word  Inscrutable  for  "  Inscruti- 

able." 
Page  34 — Fourteenth  line  from  bottom,  read  then  for  "  the." 
Page  40 — Sixth  line  from  bottom,  omit  "  But  that  is  impossible." 
Page 47 — Fifth  line  from  top,  omit  "We  derive  only  power." 
Page  49 — Second  line  from  bottom,  read  noumenal  for  "  nomenal." 
Page  63 — Eleventh  line  from  bottom,  read  Though  for  "  As." 
Page  105 — Top  line,  read  Ethics  is  law  for  "  No  ethics  is  law  " 
Page  107 — Top  line,  read  effects  for  "  effect  " 
Page  129 — Thirteenth  line  from  top,  insert  which  after  "that." 
Page  169 — Top  line,  read  for  for  "  to." 
Page  176 — Put  (c)  in  brackets  for  (e). 
Page  278 — Second  line  from  top,  read  I  &  2  for  "  142." 
Page  320 — Omit  equally,  in  seventh  line  from  bottom. 
Page  321 — Transpose  not  before  "that,"  in  fourth  line  from  bottom. 


LECTURE  I. 


SUPERNATURAL  POWER. 

The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural  is  the  deduc- 
tion of  supernatural  principles  from  an  induction  of 
natural  facts. 

We  can  better  hope  to  define  supernature,  when 
we  have  first  defined  nature.  Nature  is  all  that  it  can 
prove  itself  to  be,  and  Supernature  is  all  that  nature 
is  not,  and  which  it  cannot  prove  itself  to  be.  Nature 
is  the  derived  ;  supernature  is  the  underived.  Super- 
nature  is  that  which  has  always  been  ;  nature  is  that 
which  has  not  always  been.  My  object  is  to  show 
that, 

i.  Nature  cannot  be  separated  from  Supernature,  the 
stream  from  the  fountain,  the  human  from  the  super- 
human. Infinite,  supernatural  Power  manifests  finite 
methods.  Nature,  a  part,  makes  the  induction  of  su- 
pernature the  whole.  As  a  belief  in  supernature  is 
intuitive  to  the  human  mind,  we  have  not  so  much 
to  prove  supernature,  as  to  disprove  the  arguments 
of  those  who  deny  it.  In  doing  the  latter,  we  con- 
firm the  former. 

How  shall  we  prove  this?  Shall  we  assume  the 
supernatural,  and  reason,  a  priori,  down  to  nature,  or 
shall  we  begin  at  the  admitted   observable   facts  of 


2  The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

nature,  and  reason  a  posteriori  up  to  supernature  ? 
There  are  what  we  call  natural  facts,  things  done 
rather  than  things  existing,  which  we  can  test  by  the 
scales,  the  scalpel,  the  retort,  and  the  crucible.  Let 
us,  then,  begin  our  study  with  the  verifiable  observa- 
tions of  the  facts  of  nature.  Subject  and  object  are 
related  as  parent  and  child  ;  one  is  derived  from  the 
other ;  and  any  philosophy  of  the  relative  that  ig- 
nores either  subject  or  object — cause  or  effect — nou- 
raenon  or  phenomenon — is  incomplete  as  a  philosophy. 
When  told  that  facts  are  related  by  certain  laws,  the 
demand  is  irrepressible,  that  we  go  further,  and  ac- 
count for  the  laws,  and  for  their  Law-giver.  The  loy- 
alty of  the  human  intellect  to  itself  will  never  evade, 
nor  permit  any  line  of  thinking  calling  itself  philoso- 
phy or  science,  to  evade  a  complete  answer  to  the 
questions  it  may  raise.  We  study  matter  for  an  ob- 
jective base  to  a  subjective  theology. 

Nothing  is  beyond  supernatural  purpose  and  power. 
Nature  but  photographs  the  map  in  the  supernatural 
mind.  Method  is  a  working  plan  of  Power.  And 
here  we  notice  the  distinction  between  Power  and 
Force,  and  between  creation  and  causation.  That 
which  is  Power  to  the  philosophers  is  Force  to  the 
scientists.  All  new  things  as  the  first  atom  of  any 
kind  and  the  first  organisms,  are  creations  by  Power 
as  power;  all  chemical  or  mechanical  uses  of  these 
atoms  are  causations  by  Power  called  Force.  Power 
as  Force  has  a  direct  causative  method  or  plan  of  ap- 
plication ;  first,  when  it  chemically  cojndiues  inorganic 
matter,  and  secondly,  when  it  mechanically  moves  inor- 
ganic matter.     After  God,  as  an  originating  Power, 


Power  Chemically  Combines  Matter.  3 

manifested  matter,  whether  manifesting  himself  as 
matter,  as  some  Pantheists  say,  or  creating  it  when 
there  was  nothing,  He  proceeded  to  construct  it  into 
to  forms  and  functions,  creating  or  residing  in  it,  as 
chemical  combinations,  mechanical  motion,  and  vital 
force.  To  find  the  Factor,  let,  us  begin  with  the 
facts.  To  do  this,  let  us  imagine  ourselves  standing, 
for  a  moment,  on  the  bank  of  a  river.  In  its  depths 
are  fish.  On  the  bank  are  trees.  We  have  water 
without  life,  trees  with  life,  fish  with  life  and  intelli- 
gence, and  we  ourselves  have  conscious  thought. 
Some  one  power  is  doing  several  different  things. 
Every  object  is  covered  by  the  method  of  the  uni- 
verse, whatever  the  method  is.  In  the  water,  we  see 
a  direct  method  of  extrinsic  power,  creating  atoms 
of  oxygen  and  hydrogen,  and  as  force  causing  them 
to  become,  with  an  unsuspended  causation,  the  inor- 
ganic substance  of  water.  In  the  organic  trees,  and 
in  the  fish,  and  in  man,  we  see  an  additional,  indirect 
method  of  extrinsic  power,  committing  to  the  mys- 
tery of  heredity  the  transmission  of  life.  Analyze 
one  drop  of  water  from  the  river,  and  we  see  it  to 
be  a  fact,  that 

(a)     Matter  is  chemically  combined. 

The  drop  of  water  is  the  product  of  chemic  affinity. 
But  what  is  chemic  affinity  ?  Is  it  blind,  unintelligent, 
aimless,  impersonal?  Belonging  to  the  inorganic  de- 
partment of  nature,  one  drop  does  not  beget  another ; 
but  each  for  itself,  underived  from  any  other  drop, 
must  have  just  so  many  parts  of  oxygen,  and  just  so 
many  parts  of  hydrogen,  and  be  the  immediate  causa- 


4  The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

tive  combination  of  the  original  creative  Power. 
No  one  drop  by  inheritance  can  help  another.  They 
must  not  only  be  causatively  put  together,  but  they 
must  be  causatively  held  together.  Continued  exist- 
ence is  continued  creation.  The  mystery  of  combi- 
nation is  not  in  the  oxygen  alone,  nor  in  the  hydrogen 
alone,  nor  in  both  unless  the  proportions  are  exact. 
Fifteen  parts  of  oxygen  by  weight  will  not  combine 
into  water  with  three  parts  of  hydrogen.  Creative 
power  fixes  its  own  conditions,  if  conditions  it  must 
have.  The  proportions  must  be  sixteen  of  one  and 
two  of  the  other  ;  neither  more  nor  less.  Even  then, 
hotv  is  it  that  these  gasses  become  water?  Why  do 
not  these  conditions  produce  ink,  or  wine,  or  milk, 
instead  of  mere  water?  No  substance  chemically  de- 
finable has  any  attribute  of  life.  Its  atoms  may  be 
called  dead.     Who  can  explain  the  mystery  ? 

We  know  that  the  sun's  rays,  acting  upon  the  green 
surface  of  leaves  over  our  heads,  decompose  the  car- 
bonic dioxide,  fix  the  carbon,  and  set  free  the  oxygen  ; 
but  how  is  this  done?  How  did  the  sun's  rays  get 
their  power?     We  answer,  by  some  creative  will. 

We  know  that  chlorate  of  potash  when  heated  alone, 
will  explode  like  gunpowder;  and  yet  we  know  that 
when  this  potash  is  heated  in  the  presence  of  a  little 
black  oxide  of  manganese,  it  gasifies  in  perfect  quiet- 
ness and  safety,  and  the  manganese  remains  un- 
changed. To  call  this  result  a  catalysis  of  the  ele- 
ment, names,  but  does  not  explain  it.  How  or  by 
what  power  does  the  manganese  hold  the  heated  pot- 
ash in  subjection  ?  By  some  creative  will.  How  do 
similar   molecules  of   gold  or  salt  cohere,  dissimilar 


Matter  is  Mechanically  Moved. 


molecules  of  granite  or  gunpowder  only  adhere? 
The  same  will  is  the  only  explanation.  How  is  it 
that  by  slowly  heating  with  a  certain  proportion  of 
the  oil  of  vitriol,  diluted  largely  with  water,  common 
sawdust,  paper,  and  old  rags  even,  have  the  proper- 
ties of  sugar?  The  power  of  the  change  is  in  this 
same  creative  will.  By  what  power  does  fire  burn, 
medicines  affect  disease,  or  any  and  all  other  chemic 
changes  take  place  ?  We  know  what  occurs,  but  hoiv  ? 
And  still  more,  why — for  what  end — are  these  changes 
made  ? 

Again,  in  this  water,  as  in  everything,  from  a  grain 
of  sand  to  worlds  and  systems  of  worlds,  we  see  it  to 
be  a  fact  that, 

{b)     Matter  is  mechanically  moved. 

What  is  mechanic  force?  Is  that,  too,  blind,  aim- 
less, unintelligent,  and  impersonal  ?  Water  goes  up 
in  the  trees,  and  down  in  the  river.  Why  does  the 
same  fluid  move  in  these  opposite  directions?  One 
force  overcomes  another  force.  We  say  that  water 
rises  in  the  trees  by  capillary  attraction,  and  flows 
down  the  channel  by  the  attraction  of  gravitation, 
and  the  fish  swim  up  the  stream  by  will-power,  in 
spite  of  gravitation.  Unless  will  is  law,  fish  swim  up 
the  stream  without  law  and  against  law.  Are  these 
names  of  two  different  forces,  or  of  one  and  the  same 
force,  moving  water  in  different  directions?  What 
is  gravitation  ?  Is  it  intelligent  or  unintelligent  ? 
Whatever  it  is,  it  is  the  all-embracing  power  of  the 
universe,  holding  all  to  one  centre.  But  what  is  that 
centre?     And  further,  we  see  it  to  be  a  fact  that 


The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 


(c)     Matter  is  vitally  organized. 

What  is  vital  cause  or  force?  In  these  trees  be- 
neath which  we  pause,  are  atoms  of  carbon,  hydro- 
gen, and  nitrogen,  organized  by  some  cause  called 
LIFE.  What  is  life  ?  Let  those  who  claim  to  explain 
the  wonders  of  nature,  explain  life.  How  does  any 
organism  cure  its  wounds  ?  How  does  the  seed  form, 
and  the  bud  open,  and  the  flower  form  and  paint 
itself,  and  the  fruit  come  to  its  ripened  use  ? 

Again,  while  we  are  looking  at  the  work  of  some 
one  Power  masked  in  the  atoms,  and  in  the  motion 
of  the  water,  and  in  the  growth  and  structure  of  the 
trees,  we  see  in  our  own  reflections  upon  these  won- 
ders, a  conscious  cause  or  force.  How  do  we  think,  and 
how  do  we  think  about  our  thoughts  ?  We  are  conscious 
that  we  are  conscious.  Do  atoms  think  ?  If  so,  atoms 
of  what  ?  What  class  of  atoms  are  so  endowed,  and 
who  endowed  them  ?  Do  they  think  separately,  in 
composition,  or  when  compounded? 

2.  Fact  implies  a  factor  as  much  as  the  deed  a 
doer;  the  thing  made  the  maker;  as  much  as  a  first 
implies  a  second,  or  the  second  the  first ;  and  if  we 
deny  a  factor  to  a  fact,  the  doer  to  the  deed,  a  creator 
to  creation,  or  a  cause  to  an  effect,  we  must  remould 
all  present  thought  and  language. 

But  from  facts  we  must  form  some  notion  of  the 
Factor — from  the  seen  we  must  form  a  conception  of 
the  Unseen — from  phenomena  we  must  form  some 
opinion  as  to  the  Noumenon.  For  illustration  ;  when 
we  see  a  convex  bullet  we  know  that  it  came  out  of  a 
concave  mould. 


Fact  Implies  Factor. 


We  have  said  that  every  fact  must  have  a  Factor, 
and  the  Factor  must  be  supernatural  to  a  natural  fact. 
These  terms,  fact  and  factor,  strongly  express  crea- 
tion and  a  Creator.  Mr.  Spencer  calls  the  Factor  of 
facts  a  Power ;  but  right  here  the  question  is,  is  the 
force  of  the  Factor  extrinsic  or  intrinsic  to  the  fact? 
Sometimes  Mr.  Spencer  writes  as  though  he  thought 
the  Power  was  extrinsic.  He  says,  "  We  are  obliged 
to  regard  every  phenomenon  as  the  manifestation  of 
some  Power  by  which  we  are  acted  upon."  (F.  P. 
§  27  lb.  §§  28,  194.) 

Nothing  but  will  is  automatic.  Everything  is  either 
pushed  or  pulled  along.  Whatever  evolution  there 
may  be,  it  is  but  the  reaction  of  involution.  For  in- 
stance, the  intrinsic  energy  of  foliation  returns  the 
extrinsic  Power  of  the  chemistry  of  the  Sun.  Power 
ebbs  and  flows.  Unless  this  Power  be  idle,  all  must 
also  admit  that  this  Power  unlimited  in  time  and  space, 
manifests  facts  limited  in  time  and  space.  Positive 
philosophy  may  arbitrarily  limit  itself  to  a  study  of 
facts — of  phenomena — of  effects — in  a  word,  of  the 
Object ;  but  the  intelligence  of  mankind  will  require 
a  system  of  such  pretension,  to  find  a  law-giver  for 
its  laws  —  causes  for  its  effects  —  noumenon  for  its 
phenomena— a  Subject  for  its  Object.  Facts  must  be 
traced  back  to  facts,  ad  infinitum,  to  a  Factor,  in  order 
to  construct  complete  science.  Science  is  more  than 
a  catalogue  of  facts.  Facts  are  objective  to  subject- 
ive Power.  And  here  we  reach  the  distinction  be- 
tween philosophy  and  science;  philosophy  studies 
the  subjective  Power,  and  science  the  objective  facts 
as  a  method  of  all  that  is  before  the  mind. 


8  The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural 

3.  Factor  implies  Power.  The  Infinite  Factor  ap- 
pears in  the  finite  fact.  The  known  fact  reveals  that 
unknown  Factor,  which  in  both  Scripture  and  science, 
is  called  Power.  St.  Paul  says,  "  the  invisible  things 
of  Him  from  the  creation  of  the  world  are  clearly 
seen,  being  understood  by  the  things  that  are  made, 
even  His  eternal  Power  and  Godhead."  As  the  cause 
is  greater  than  the  effect — as  the  producer  is  before 
the  produced — as  that  which  is,  came  from  that  which 
was  before — as  the  doer  is  greater  than  the  deed — so 
the  factor  is  greater  than  the  fact,  the  Power  is  greater 
than  its  manifestation. 

Prof.  Fiske  says :  "  There  exists  a  power,  to  which 
no  limit  in  time  or  space  is  conceivable,  of  which  all 
phenomena,  as  presented  in  consciousness,  are  mani- 
festations, but  which  we  can  know  only  through  these 
manifestations.  Here  is  a  formula  legitimately  ob- 
tained by  the  employment  of  scientific  methods,  as 
the  results  of  subjective  analvsis  on  the  one  hand* 
and  of  objective  analysis  on  the  other  hand.  Yet  this 
formula,  which  presents  itself  as  the  final  outcome  of 
a  purely  scientific  inquiry,  expresses  also  the  funda- 
mental truth  of  theism — the  truth  by  which  religious 
feeling  is  justified.  The  existence  of  God — the  Su- 
preme truth  asserted  alike  hy  Christianity  and  by 
inferior  historic  religion — is  asserted  with  equal  em- 
phasis by  that  cosmic  philosophy  which  seeks  its  data 
in  science  alone.  *  *  *  Though  science  may  de- 
stroy mythology,  it  can  never  destroy  religion  ;  and 
to  the  astronomer  of  the  future,  as  well  as  the  psalm- 
ist of  old,  the  heavens  will  declare  the  glory  of  God." 
(Outlines  of  Cosmic  Philosophy,  2  vol.,  p.  417.) 


Factor  Implies  Power. 


What  is  this  Power,  and  what  can  we  know  of  it  ? 
Mr.  Spencer  says,  "  The  consciousness  of  an  Inscru- 
table Power  manifested  to  us  through  all  phenomena, 
has  been  growing  ever  clearer;  and  must  eventually 
be  freed  from  imperfections.  The  certainty  that  on 
the  one  hand  such  a  Power  exists,  while  on  the  other 
hand  its  nature  transcends  intuition  and  is  beyond 
imagination,  is  the  certainty  towards  which  intelli- 
gence has  from  the  first  been  progressing.  To  this 
conclusion  Science  inevitably  arrives  as  it  reaches  its 
confines  ;  while  to  this  conclusion  Religion  is  irresist- 
ibly driven  by  criticism.  And  satisfying,  as  it  does, 
the  demands  of  the  most  rigorous  logic,  at  the  same 
time  that  it  gives  the  religious  sentiment  the  wid- 
est possible  sphere  of  action,  it  is  the  conclusion 
we  are  bound  to  accept  without  reserve  or  qualifica- 
tion.    (F.P.,§3i.)" 

But  this  Inscrutable  Power  is  so  much  a  power  of 
not-nature,  that  we  have  the  authority  of  Mr.  Spen- 
cer himself  for  saying  that, 

4.  This  power  is  supernatural.  What  is  superna- 
ture  ?  This  question  is  answered  when  we  know  what 
nature  is.  Supernature  is  that  which  nature  is  not, 
and  for  which  nature  cannot  account.  As  the  factor  is 
greater  than  the  fact,  so  if  the  fact  is  natural,  the 
factor  must  be  supernatural. 

The  two  conclusions  of  Mr.  Spencer  are :  first,  that 
nature  and  supernature  are  dual  and  not  the  same ; 
and,  second,  that  the  ultimate  genesis  of  nature  is  in 
supernature — in  other  words,  supernature  begins  all, 
and  manifests  itself  in  a  method  of  natural  facts.  No 
greater  inequality  could  be  admitted,  than  that  admit- 


io        The  PJiilosophy  of  the  Supernatural, 

ted,  but  not  denned,  by  Mr.  Spencer.  The  difference, 
as  just  said,  is  in  kind,  not  degree.  One  is  what 
the  other  appoints,  but  cannot  be  what  the  other  is. 
Supernature  implies  all  possible  inequality  over  na- 
ture in  duration,  essence,  power  and  place.  If  super- 
nature  is  eternal,  nature  must  be  temporal ;  if  super- 
nature  is  Being,  nature  must  be  manifestation  ;  if 
supernature  is  omnipresent,  nature  must  be  local ;  if 
supernature  is  omniscient,  nature  must  be  nescient ; 
if  supernature  is  conscious,  nature  must  be  uncon- 
scious ;  Man  is  supernatural  so  far  as  he  is  supernatur- 
ally  conscious,  as  were  the  Prophets  and  the  Apostles ; 
if  supernature  is  power,  nature  must  be  only  method. 
The  plan  of  nature  is  supernatural  to  nature. 

Material  science,  as  science,  could  not  possibly  ad- 
mit more  to  religion,  than  has  been  admitted  by  Mr. 
Spencer.  Having  traced,  though  to  a  limited  extent, 
the  methods  of  supernatural  power,  to  the  uttermost 
limits  of  its  manifestation  called  nature,  science  must 
leave  religion  to  follow  on  with  its  worship,  of  all 
that  is  beyond.  Nature  is  but  the  method  of  super- 
nature,  and  this  method  only  is  subject  to  scientific 
study.  Religion  is  for  the  supernatural  power  be- 
hind the  method.  Science  may  study  what  superna- 
ture does;  religion  bows  before  what  supernature  is. 
Here,  then,  we  have  the  two  sides  of  the  universe, 
nature  and  supernature  ;  and  the  two  studies,  science 
and  religion.  Science  ought  not  to  question  the  be- 
liefs of  religion  in  that  where  it  has  no  knowledge ; 
and  religion  ought  to  rejoice  for  all  knowledge  of 
nature  furnished  by  science,  enlarging  its  conceptions 
of  supernature. 


Power  is  Supernatural.  1 1 

So  far  as  the  modern  theory  of  evolution  is  proved, 
it  proves  all  that  need  be  proved,  as  to  the  existence 
and  attributes  of  the  supernatural — of  God.  Ac- 
cording to  its  logic  of  necessary  progress,  if  God  did 
not  make  nature,  nature  has  made  God.  This  is 
proved  by  the  supernatural  evolution  of  nature,  or 
by  the  natural  evolution  of  supernature.  To  begin 
is  to  create ;  to  continue  is  to  evolve. 

Did  supernature  evolve  nature,  or  nature,  superna- 
ture? In  the  supernatural  evolution  of  nature,  the 
less  is  from  the  greater,  or  the  part  from  the  whole. 
In  the  natural  evolution  of  supernature,  the  greater 
is  from  the  less  or  the  whole  from  a  part.  Evolution 
is  a  method  of  unbroken,  progressive  creation.  Di- 
rect or  indirect  creation  is  every  moment,  every- 
where, in  everything.  Creation  begins  and  continues 
the  universe.  Evolution,  if  anything,  is  an  intelli- 
gent method  of  carrying  on  what  intelligent  power 
originally  created.  Our  reasoning,  whether  from 
supernature  to  nature,  or  from  nature  to  superna- 
ture, is  both  a  priori  and  a  posteriori.  Supernature  as 
an  origin,  leads  us,  a  priori,  to  nature  as  a  product; 
and  nature  as  a  product  leads  us  back,  a  posteriori,  to 
supernature  as  an  origin.  So,  nature  as  a  cause,  leads 
us  a  priori  to  supernature  as  an  effect;  and  nature 
as  an  effect,  leads  us  back  a  posteriori  to  supernature 
as  a  cause.  In  either  look,  the  Present  is  a  historian 
of  the  Past,  and  a  Prophet  of  the  Future.  If  we  can- 
not see  that  supernature  has  minimized  itself  to  na- 
ture, we  must  admit,  that  in  the  necessity  of  eternal 
progress,  nature  must  maximize  itself  to  supernature. 

"  As  to  the  students  of  science,  occupied  as  such 


i  2         The  Philosopliy  of  the  Supernatural. 

are  with  established  truths,"  continues  Herbert  Spen- 
cer, "  and  accustomed  to  regard  things  not  already 
known  as  things  hereafter  to  be  discovered,  they  are 
liable  to  forget  that  information,  however  extensive 
it  may  become,  can  never  satisfy  inquiry.  Positive 
knowledge  does  not,  and  never  can,  fill  the  whole 
region  of  possible  thought.  At  the  utmost  reach  of 
discovery  there  arises,  and  must  ever  arise,  the  ques- 
tion— What  lies  beyond  ?  As  it  is  impossible  to 
think  of  a  limit  to  space  so  as  to  exclude  the  idea  of 
space  lying  outside  that  limit;  so  we  cannot  conceive 
of  any  explanation  profound  enough  to  exclude  the 
question — What  is  the  explanation  of  the  explanation? 
Regarding  science  as  a  gradual  increasing  sphere, 
we  may  say,  that  every  addition  to  its  surface  does 
but  bring  it  into  wider  contact  with  surrounding 
nescience."     (F.  P.  §  4.) 

If  asked  what  is  supernature,  I  reply  by  asking 
what  is  nature  ?  Is  Power  over  nature  natural  or 
supernatural  to  nature  ?  If  nature  is  an  explanation 
of  all  things,  supernature  is  that  explanation  of  the 
explanation  which  answers  Mr.  Spencer's  question. 
In  the  dual  existence  of  the  universe,  St.  Paul  says, 
"  The  invisible  things  of  Him  from  the  creation  of 
the  world  are  clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  the 
things  that  are  made,  even  his  eternal  power  and 
godhead  ;  so  that  they  are  without  excuse."  (Rom. 
i.,  20.)  Thought  becomes  visible.  Power  takes  meth- 
od. Mind  is  supernatural  to  the  matter  it  proves  to 
exist.  To  deny  the  supernatural  assumes  that  the 
natural  is  both  admitted  and  comprehended.  But,  if 
only  the  comprehensible  is  the  natural,  then  nothing  is 


Power  is  Behind  All.  13 

the  natural.  If  all  is  supernatural  which  is  incompre- 
hensible, then  all  is  supernatural;  for  while  we  can 
apprehend  some  of  the  naked  facts  of  matter,  we 
cannot  comprehend  why  the  facts  are  facts — we  can 
comprehend  nothing.  The  supernatural  is  the  in- 
comprehensible part  of  the  comprehensible  ;  it  is  that 
which  we  do  not  understand  in  that  which  we  think 
we  do  understand  ;  it  is  the  unknown  part  of  the 
known.  Supernature  is  the  invisible  and  intelligent 
Power  behind  the  visible  and  unintelligent  Form.  As 
every  concavity  must  enclose  a  convexity,  and  every 
convexity  be  enclosed  in  a  concavity — as  nothing  can 
contain,  surround,  or  embrace  itself,  so  the  finite 
must  be  within  the  circle  of  the  infinite — nature  must 
be  contained  in  some  supernatural  container,  call  it 
supernature  or  what  you  may.  As  between  nature 
and  supernature,  one  is  as  incomprehensible  as  the 
other— in  fact,  they  are  different  names  for  the  same 
existence,  considered  from  different  sides  of  the  uni- 
verse. One  considers  God  in  what  He  is,  and  the 
other  in  what  he  does.  As  from  the  South  Pole  to 
the  North  Pole  it  is  all  the  way  north,  or  as  from 
the  North  Pole  to  the  South  Pole  it  is  all  the  way 
south  ;  so  from  supernatural  existence  to  natural  phe- 
nomena, it  is  all  supernatural,  and  from  natural  phe- 
nomena to  supernatural  existence  it  is  all  natural.  Is 
the  movement  from  supernature  down  to  nature  or 
from  nature  up  to  supernature?  The  supernatural 
is  the  subjective  side  of  objective  nature  ;  the  natural 
is  the  objective  side  of  subjective  supernature.  As 
the  invisible  fountain  prolongs  itself  into  the  river, 
so  supernature  flows  out  into  visible  existence,  called 


14         The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

nature.  Supernature,  Natura  Naturans,  is  always 
producing  and  is  never  produced  ;  Nature,  Natura 
Naturata,  is  always  produced,  and  is  never  produc- 
ing-. But  we  cannot  tell  where  supernature  ends  and 
where  nature  begins ;  for,  in  a  sense,  each  is  the 
other.  There  is  subjective  identity  and  objective 
difference.  As  said  before,  all  is  supernatural  or 
above  nature  for  which  nature  cannot  account,  such 
as  its  own  origin  and  development,  it  is  that  by 
which  nature  is  nature.  Strictly  speaking,  however, 
to  separate  nature  from  supernature,  other  than  verb- 
ally, is  to  separate  the  inseparable  Creator  and  crea- 
tion. Nature  can  no  more  separate  itself  from  super- 
nature  than  a  cube  can  separate  itself  from  its  own 
outside.  Nature  and  supernature  have  a  common 
centre  in  a  supreme,  omnipresent,  omnipotent  Will, 
personal  or  impersonal. 

The  doctrine  that  supernature  produces  nature  is 
the  theistic  logic  of  the  whole  producing  a  part ; 
but  the  doctrine  that  nature,  the  part  that  was,  pro- 
duces the  whole  that  is,  is  logically,  pantheism. 

The  Factor  that  could  make  a  part  of  nature  could 
make  the  whole ;  and  the  Factor  that  could  make  the 
whole  of  nature,  must  be  supernature.  If  words  have 
any  meaning,  the  finite  is  not  the  infinite,  the  fact  is 
not  the  Factor,  nor  is  the  Factor  the  fact.  Therefore, 
a  natural  fact  implies  a  supernatural  Factor.  The  man- 
ifesting thought  must  be  supernatural  to  the  man- 
ifested thing.  In  theistic  evolution,  mind  manifests 
its  own  matter;  in  atheistic  evolution,  matter  mani- 
fests its  own  mind.  In  this  system  the  doctrine  is, 
that  the  universe  is  the  manifestation  of  a  Power  that 


Power  is  Behind  All,  15 

transcends  our  knowledge.  This  Power  is  otherwise 
called  the  "  Inscrutiable  Cause,"  "  Immanent  Force," 
"  The  Unknowable  Reality,"  "  The  Unknowable 
Cause,  Power  or  Force."  (F.  P.,  §  62.)  With  these 
phrases  begin  and  end  all  that  agnostic  evolution  has 
to  say  about  the  origin  of  the  universe.  Indeed  evo- 
lutionists cannot  deny  that  facts  have  a  Factor ;  but 
who  or  what  that  Factor  is,  whether  personal  or  im- 
personal, intelligent  or  unintelligent,  evolution  is 
silent.     That  Factor,  to  sav  the  least,  is  a  Power. 

To  say  that  all  things  are  manifestations  of  a 
Power  that  transcends  our  knowledge,  is  to  say,  that 
what  the  manifesting  Power  is,  the  manifested  thing 
is  not;  and  therefore,  as  just  said,  if  one  is  natural, 
the  other  must  be  supernatural.  Nature  is  the  com- 
prehensible side  of  the  supernatural,  and  the  super- 
natural is  the  incomprehensible  side  of  the  natural. 

"  Though  the  Absolute  cannot  in  any  manner  or 
degree  be  known,  in  the  strict  sense  of  knowing,  yet 
we  find  that  its  positive  existence  is  a  necessary  doc- 
trine of  consciousness ;  that  so  long  as  conscious- 
ness continues,  we  cannot  for  an  instance  rid  it  of  this 
doctrine;  and  that  thus  the  belief  which  this  doctrine 
constitutes  has  a  higher  warrant  than  any  other 
whatever."     (F.  P.,  §  27.) 

Does  the  bullet  make  its  own  mould  ?  Does  the  star 
evolve  its  own  atmosphere?  and  prescribe  its  own 
orbit  and  place  ?  That  the  Supernatural  is  something 
that  the  natural  is  not,  and  by  which  the  natural  is 
natural,  is  admitted  by  Mr.  Spencer  when  he  says  (F. 
P.  §  30)  "  The  progress  of  intelligence  has  throughout 
been  dual.     Though  it  has  not   seemed  so  to  those 


1 6         The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

who  made  it,  every  step  in  advance  has  been  a  step 
towards  both  the  natural  and  the  supernatural.  The 
better  interpretation  of  each  phenomena  has  been,  on 
the  one  hand,  the  rejection  of  a  cause  that  was  rela- 
tively conceivable  in  its  nature,  but  unknown  in  the 
order  of  its  actions,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  adop- 
tion of  a  cause  that  was  known  in  the  order  of  its  ac- 
tion, but  relatively  inconceivable  in  its  nature.  The 
first  advance  out  of  universal  fetichism,  manifestly  in- 
volved the  conception  of  agencies  less  assimilable  to 
the  familiar  agencies  of  men  and  animals,  and  therefore 
less  understood  ;  while  at  the  same  time,  such  newly 
conceived  agencies,  in  so  far  as  they  were  distin- 
guished by  their  uniform  effects,  were  better  under- 
stood than  those  they  replaced.  All  subsequent  ad- 
vances display  the  same  double  result.  Every  deeper 
and  more  general  power  arrived  at  as  a  cause  of  phe- 
nomena, has  been  at  once  less  comprehensible  than 
the  special  ones  it  superseded,  in  the  sense  being  less 
definitely  representable  in  thought ;  while  it  has  been 
more  comprehensible  in  the  sense  that  its  actions  have 
been  more  completely  predicable.  The  progress  has 
thus  been  as  much  towards  the  establishment  of  a 
positively  unknown  as  towards  the  establishment  of 
a  positive  known.  Though  as  knowledge  approaches 
its  culmination,  every  unaccountable  and  seemingly 
supernatural  fact  is  brought  into  the  category  of  facts 
that  are  accountable  and  natural ;  yet,  at  the  same 
time,  all  accountable  or  natural  facts  are  proved  to 
be,  in  their  ultimate  genesis,  unaccountable  and  super- 
natural." 

Whether  this  directly  results  from  creation,  evolu- 


Supernatural  Nature.  i  7 

tion  or  emanation,  nature  is  not  supernature,  the  fact 
is  not  the  Factor,  the  subject  is  not  the  Object,  evo- 
lution is  not  the  evolver.  The  Supernatural  Factor, 
is  that  incomprehensible  Power  in  every  fact  which 
the  fact  itself  is  not,  and  by  which  the  fact  is  a  fact. 
We  are  told  that  nature  includes  all  things ;  but  if 
"all  things  are  manifestations  of  a  Power  that  tran- 
scends our  knowledge  ;  then  Power  was  before  that 
manifestation  of  Power  we  call  nature ;  and  what  the 
power  is,  the  manifestation  is  not ;  yet  if  the  Power 
is  Supernatural,  the  manifestation  must  be  Supernat- 
ural. Power  did  or  did  not  exhaust  itself  in  nature. 
If  Power  did  exhaust  itself  in  nature,  then  nature  as  a 
whole,  includes  all  Power;  but  how  can  Power  mani- 
fest anything  further  when  it  is  itself  included  in  all 
things?  The  effect  cannot  manifest  its  own  cause. 
Can  the  circumference  manifest  itself  as  the  centre 
and  cease  to  be  the  circumference?  What  becomes 
of  the  centre  when  the  circumference  is  gone,  and 
what  becomes  of  the  circumference  when  the  centre 
is  gone?  If  Supernature  could  have  form,  it  would 
be  as  unlike  nature  as  the  form  of  the  concave  mould 
is  from  its  reversed  form  in  the  convex  bullet,  and  the 
form  of  the  die  in  the  form  of  the  coin  ;  and  in  the 
unity  of  both  one  is  the  complement  of  the  other. 
There  can  be  no  concavity  without  a  convexity,  nor 
any  convexity  without  a  concavity.  Even  so  does 
God  the  infinite  Spirit,  "  without  body,  parts,  or  pas- 
sion, reverse  Himself  in  the  form  of  finite  matter,  in 
the  visible  part  of  the  invisible  whole,  and  in  animal 
passions.  As  it  is  a  contradiction  to  say  that  anything 
is,  and  at  the  same  time  is  not,  so  the  impersonal  forms 
2 


18         The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

which  we  do  know,  cannot  be  the  personal  Power 
which  we  do  not  know  but  which  can  be  proved.  The 
infinite  may  create  the  finite,  but  the  infinite  cannot 
be  the  finite.  These  skeptics  tell  us  that  the  Power 
that  produces  all  things  is  unknowable  ;  and  yet  they 
claim  to  know  it  so  far  as  to  say,  that  it  is  not  our 
God.  If  it  is  unknowable  to  them,  how  can  they  say 
what  it  is — whether  it  is  or  is  not  our  God. 

Look  through  your  window  in  the  Spring  time,  and 
see  nature  develop  a  plan  of  Power.  Each  leaf,  and 
bud  seems  to  know  when  to  come,  what  form  to  take, 
and  when  its  form  and  function  are  complete  does  not 
fail  or  forget  to  repeat  itself.  What  does  all  this? 
All  admit  Power.  Who  can  doubt  this  superhuman 
intelligence  when  it  sublimely  surpasses  all  that  hu- 
man intelligence  has  ever  done  ?  It  works  to  a  plan 
incomprehensible  to  highest  created  thought.  Evo- 
lution proper,  like  the  Kaleidoscope,  progressively 
changes  but  never  repeats.  If  heredity  in  organic 
nature  is  a  fact  in  evolution,  it  is  a  repeating  fact, 
unlike  all  other  evolution. 

In  materialism,  or  the  Matter-System,  eternal  matter 
is  all ;  in  idealism,  or  the  Mind-System,  eternal  mind 
is  all;  in  evolution,  or  the  Power-System,  eternal 
power  is  all.  In  evolution  so-called,  there  is  both  a 
Power,  a  Process  and  a  Method.  Supernature  is  this 
Power  and  Nature  is  the  Method.  The  Supernatural 
Power,  both  abstract  as  Power  and  concrete  as  a 
Factor,  is  that  by  which  everything  is  anything,  and 
Nature  the  method,  called  Evolution,  is  the  way  of 
this  Supernatural  Power,  by  which  everything  is  any- 
thing.    For  the  present,  we  do  not  characterize  this 


Power  as  Power  in   Creation.  19 

Power  as  either  personal  or  impersonal.  All  of  Evo- 
lution that  is  not  correlation,  if  such  there  can  be,  is 
simply  a  natural  process  or  method  of  Supernatural 
Power. 

If  nature  is  a  manifestation  of  supernatural  power, 
how  far  is  nature  supernatural  ?  From  a  supernatural 
fountain  must  flow  a  supernatural  stream.  As  water 
will  rise  to  the  level  of  its  fountain,  it  would  seem 
that  all  manifestations  called  nature  would  be  as  su- 
pernatural as  the  manifesting  Power. 

5.  Supernatural  Power  is  a  manifesting  Potver.  Mr. 
Spencer  says,  "  all  things  are  manifestations  of  a 
Power  that  transcends  our  knowledge."  Manifesta- 
tions prove  manifesting  Power.  These  manifestations 
are  either  creations,  causations,  or  derivations.  Cre- 
ative manifestations  are  manifestations  of  new  things 
by  Power  as  Power ;  causative  manifestations  are 
different  uses  by  Power  as  Force,  of  things  already 
created ;  derivative  manifestations  are  hereditary 
manifestations  by  Power  as  genetic  Function.  In 
inorganic  manifestations,  or  of  things  without  life. 
Power  manifests  each  individual  as  an  individual,  but 
not  one  from  another ;  in  organic  manifestations,  or 
of  things  with  life,  Power  manifests  one  thing  from 
another,  in  hereditary  succession.  In  causative  man- 
ifestations, unlike  is  from  unlike  ;  in  derivative  mani- 
festations like  is  from  like;  in  both,  the  less  is  from 
the  greater,  not  the  greater  from  the  less — that  is,  the 
Power  is  greater  than  its  manifestation — the  effect  is 
less  than  the  cause,  the  derived  is  less  than  the  unde- 
rived.  What  does  causative  manifestations  in  nature 
prove  as  to  the  manifesting   Power  above  nature  ? 


20         The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

They  prove  that  all  phenomena  without  life,  are 
caused  by  extrinsic,  not  derived  by  intrinsic  power ; 
and  that  all  phenomena  with  life  are  derived  by  in- 
intrinsic,  not  caused  by  extrinsic  power.  Any  way, 
the  Power  is  greater  than  its  manifestation  ;  or,  which 
is  the  same  thing,  the  manifestation  is  less  than  its 
manifesting  Power. 

(a)  In  causative  manifestations,  the  manifested 
atoms  are  unlike  the  manifesting  Power;  the  effect  is 
unlike  the  cause— the  thunder  is  unlike  the  lightning 
—  the  bugle  is  unlike  the  blast  —  the  oxygen  that 
consumes  the  carbon  is  unlike  fire.  What  is  cause? 
Cause  is  Power  at  work.  That  is  the  true  cause  or 
Power  of  the  universe,  which  most  intelligently  ac- 
counts for  the  universe  :  a  conscious  cause,  or  Power, 
most  intelligently  accounts  for  the  universe :  there- 
fore, a  conscious  cause,  or  Power,  is  the  true  cause, 
or  Power,  of  the  universe.  Some  agnostics  prefer 
the  terms  power  and  manifestation,  to  the  old  terms 
of  cause  and  effect;  but  the  meaning  of  both  pairs  of 
correlatives  is  the  same.  The  bridge  between  unlim- 
ited consciousness  of  the  Power,  or  cause,  and  the 
manifestation  of  the  limited  consciousness  of  persons 
and  the  absence  of  consciousness  in  limited  things, 
is  in  the  unity  of  all  things.  Somehow,  all  is  one 
and  one  is  all.  The  logic  of  personal  pantheism  is 
the  logic  of  St.  Paul's  argument.  An  omnipresent 
God  is  an  omnipresent  life,  mind,  will,  conscious- 
ness, power,  and  person.  Like  knots  in  a  skein  of 
thread,  or  ganglions  in  a  system  of  nerves,  there  is 
a  uniting  movement  in  the  several  constituents  of 
cause,  when  they  come  to  us  as  one  cause.    This  is  so 


The  Beginning  of  Caicsation.  2  1 


in  the  conditions  of  life,  but  not  so  in  life  itself.  Life 
is  cause  to  itself,  if  cause  there  be.  Creation,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  causation,  begins  exactly  when  Will 
acts — when  the  absolute  manifests  the  relative — when 
Power  manifests  force.  Causation,  as  distinguished 
from  creation,  begins  when  Will  changes  the  relations 
of  things,  or  when  force,  as  distinguished  from  Power, 
acts.  Just  how  or  why  manifestation  follows  Power, 
or  object  follows  subject,  or  effect  follows  cause,  or 
matter  follows  mind,  or  phenomena  follows  noume- 
non,  is  inexorably  inscrutable  to  human  intelligence. 
"  There  is  here  interposed,"  says  Prof.  Tyndal  ( on 
Virchow  and  Evolution,  Pop.  Sci.,  Jan.,  187  ),  "a  fis- 
sure over  which  the  ladder  of  physical  reasoning  is 
incompetent  to  carry  us."  But  Prof.  T.  goes  to  the 
wrong  place  to  get  across.  The  '  fissure  '  that  is  open 
at  the  top,  needing  a  bridging  ladder,  is  closed  at  the 
bottom,  where  no  ladder  could  be  used.  Below  visi- 
ble division  is  invisible  unity.  The  two  walls  of  a 
fissure,  like  a  re-entrant  angle,  end  as  they  meet  each 
other.  One  Power  takes  many  forms.  One  line  may 
be  rounded  into  curves,  or  sharpened  into  angles. 
"  We  must,  therefore,  accept,"  says  Prof.  T.,  "  the 
observed  association  as  an  empiricle  fact,  without 
being  able  to  bring  it  under  the  yoke  of  a  priori  de- 
duction." Between  the  subjective  and  the  object- 
ive, he  asks,  "  What  is  the  causal  connection?"  and 
answers,  "  I  do  not  see  the  connection,  nor  am  I  ac- 
quainted with  anybody  who  does  "  (lb.).  But  as  just 
said,  fact  is  none  the  less  a  fact,  because  it  is  incom- 
prehensible. We  may  comprehend  the  What,  but 
not  comprehend  the  How  or  the  Who. 


22         The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

Prof.  Youmans  says  :  "  The  tendency  of  inquiry  is 
ever  from  the  material  toward  the  abstract,  the  ideal, 
the  spiritual.  The  course  of  astronomical  science 
has  been  on  a  vast  scale  to  withdraw  the  attention 
from  the  material  and  sensible,  and  to  fix  it  upon  the 
invisible  and  snpersensuous.  It  has  shown  that  a 
pure  principle  forms  the  immaterial  foundation  of 
the  universe.  From  the  baldest  material,  we  rise  at 
last  to  a  truth  of  the  spiritual  world,  of  so  exalted  an 
order  that  it  has  been  said  to  connect  the  mind  of 
man  with  the  spirit  of  God."  (Youmans'  Introduc- 
tion to  Essays  on  the  Correlation  and  Conservation 
of  Force.) 

Boscovitch  held  that  what  we  call  a  material  bod}7, 
is  nothing-  else  than  an  aggregation  of  '  centres  of 
force.'  John  S.  Mill  psychologized  matter  down  to 
a  "  permanent  possibility  of  sensations."  But  we 
must  not  here  enter  upon  the  question,  what  con- 
sciousness there  is  veiled  in  apparent  unconsciousness, 
or  how  much  mind  there  may  be  in  matter. 

Holding  natural  life  to  be  a  mode  if  not  an  emana- 
tion of  supernatural  life,  we  need  not  join  issue  with 
Prof.  Tyndal  when  he  says  (Belfast  Address):  "that 
as  he  prolongs  the  vision  backward  across  the  bound- 
ary of  experimental  evidence,  he  discerns  in  that  mat- 
ter which  we  in  our  ignorance,  and  notwithstanding 
our  reverence  for  its  Creator,  have  covered  with  op- 
probrium, the  promise  and  potency  of  every  form  and 
quality  of  life."  If  matter  and  material  forces  do 
not  themselves  see,  there  are  omniscient  eyes  that  see 
for  them  and  in  them.  As  we  magnify  nature,  we 
glorify  supernature. 


Psychic  Matter. 


-o 


If  Francis  Galton's  statistics  be  true,  not  more  than 
one  scientist  in  ten  takes  the  non-religious  ground, 
and  says  that  matter  is  factor  and  mind  is  fact.  To 
escape  the  perplexity  involved  in  the  impotency  of 
unintelligent  matter,  impersonal  intelligence  has  been 
attributed  to  it  ;  giving  to  matter  and  mind  different 
names  for  one  and  the  same  existence.  But  mind 
does  not  know  itself  to  be  matter,  nor  does  matter 
know  itself  to  be  mind.  But  if  matter  and  mind  are 
one  and  the  same,  shall  we  call  that  oneness  matter, 
or  shall  we  call  it  mind  ?  If  mind  exists,  we  cannot 
say  that  the  universe  is  all  matter :  and  e  converse?,  if 
matter  exists,  we  cannot  say  that  the  universe  is  all 
mind,  unless  each  is  the  other. 

Prof.  Hceckel  says :  "  Under  whatever  form  we 
may  picture  to  ourselves  the  union  of  soul  and  body, 
of  spirit  and  matter,  it  is  still  clear,  on  the  theory  of 
evolution,  that  all  organic  matter  at  least  in  general, 
is,  in  some  sense  possessed  of  psychic  properties.  In 
the  first  place  the  progress  of  microscopic  research 
has  shown  that  the  elementary  anatomic  parts  of 
organs—the  cells — generally  possess  an  individual 
psychic  life."  (Munich  Address  in  Sup.  Pop.  Sci., 
Feb.,  1878.)  He  speaks  of  "cell-soul"  "soul  of  the 
atom,"  &c.  Wallace  (Nat.  Sel.  363)  says,  "  none  of 
the  properties  of  matter  can  be  due  to  the  atoms 
themselves,  but  only  to  the  forces  which  emanate 
from  the  points  in  space  indicated  by  the  atomic 
centres,  it  is  logical  continually  to  diminish  their  size 
till  they  vanish,  leaving  only  localized  centres  of 
force  to  represent  them."  All  atoms  are  equal  but 
unlike,  and  one  atom  cannot  be  the  cause  of  another 


24         The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

atom,  nor  can  one  atom  be  the  effect  of  another 
atom.  An  atom  of  carbon  cannot  be  the  cause  of 
another  like  atom  of  carbon. 

It  has  been  said  that  Nature  is  an  endless  series  of 
efficient  cause.  This  may  be  admitted,  if  an  endless 
series  of  efficient  mean  a  system  of  persistently  cre- 
ative pulsations,  propagated  and  transmitted,  as  said 
before,  like  concentric  waves,  from  one  central,  omni- 
scient, omnipotent,  omnipresent  and  omnific  cause; 
but  there  can  be  no  series  to  a  succession  of  blind, 
original,  different,  independent,  impersonal  causes. 
There  can  be  no  universe,  as  the  word  imples,  with- 
out a  centre  ;  and  that  centre  must  be  one  to  which 
both  the  inorganic  and  the  organic  look  for  their  law 
of  harmonious  adjustment  and  operation — a  centre 
of  sufficient  intelligence,  power,  and  energy. 

The  Power  of  the  cause  of  things,  is,  in  fact,  in- 
scrutable to  man.  Aristotle's  four  causes — the  mate- 
rial, the  formal,  the  efficient  and  the  final — teach  us 
nothing.  What  anything  is,  hozv  it  is,  whence  it  is, 
or  why  it  is,  man  does  not  know.  Herbert  Spencer, 
as  we  have  seen,  gives  the  last  formula  and  conclusion 
of  philosophic  thought,  when  he  says,  "  The  axiom- 
atic truth  of  physical  science  unavoidably  postulate 
Absolute  Being  as  the  common  basis."  That  was  the 
opinion  of  Parmenides,  460  B.  C.  The  word  "  cause,'' 
however,  was  not  used  in  speculative  discourse,  until 
the  time  of  Augustine,  400  A.  D.  Before  that  time 
the  Greeks  used  words  signifying  the  principle  or 
beginning  of  things  ;  but  no  word  like  "  cause'"  in  the 
sense  of  power,  which  is  now  associated  with  the 
word  "effect"  as  its  correlative,  was  then  used. 


Causal  Power  is  Will.  25 

Causal  power  seems  to  be  Will.  As  we  trace  all 
our  own  work  to  will,  why  not  trace  all  other  work  to 
will  ?  As  far  as  we  can  see,  power  is  in  will,  will  is 
in  personality,  personality  is  in  being  :  Coming-  down- 
ward, we  have  being,  personality,  power,  will  or  law. 

If  the  one  omnipresent  cause  be  Absolute  Being, 
then  what  are  called  secondary  causes  are  not  strictly 
causes  at  all ;  but  are  only  the  systematic,  persistent 
energy  of  this  Being.  Causation  is  the  energy  ol 
one,  ever-expanding,  inexhaustible  unit  of  cause,  not 
of  many  units.  If  Absolute  Being  be  cause,  then,  as 
there  cannot  be  more  than  one  Absolute  Being,  there 
cannot  be  more  than  one  cause.  Cause  is  one  as  the 
sun ;  effects  are  many  as  the  rays. 

It  has  been  objected  that  religionists  insist  that 
nothing  can  exist  without  a  cause,  except  a  cause,  and 
that  this  uncaused  cause  is  God.  It  is  contended 
that  every  cause  must  produce  an  effect,  because 
until  it  does  produce  an  effect,  it  is  not  a  cause,  and 
every  effect  must  in  its  turn  become  a  cause.  There- 
fore, it  it  argued,  that  in  the  nature  of  things,  there 
cannot  be  a  last  cause,  for  the  reason  that  a  so-called 
last  cause  would  necessarily  produce  an  effect,  and 
that  effect  must  necessarily  become  a  cause.  The 
converse  of  these  propositions  must  be  true.  Every 
effect  must  have  had  a  cause,  and  every  cause  must 
have  had  an  effect.  Therefore,  there  could  have  been 
no  first  cause.  A  first  cause  is  just  as  impossible  as 
a  last  effect." 

But  such  logic  is  fatal ;  for,  if  there  be  no  first 
cause,  there  can  be  no  first  effect,  and  if  there  be  no 
first  effect,  there  can  be  no  effect  at  all.     If  there  be 


26         The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

any  effect  at  all,  there  must  be  a  first  effect ;  and  if 
there  be  a  first  effect,  there  must  be  a  first  cause. 
Why  is  cause  a  cause?  May  we  not  say  that  what  is 
called  an  efficient  cause  is  the  activity  of  that  Power 
by  which  everything  is  anything?  and  includes  orig- 
inating intelligence,  originating  power,  and  the  orig- 
inating act?  That  cannot  be  the  cause  of  a  thing 
which  has  no  knowledge  how  to  cause,  nor  has  the 
power  to  cause.  Every  series  has  a  beginning.  If  a 
series  of  causes  is  what  is  called  nature,  then  nature 
symbolizing  that  series,  had  a  beginning  in  some  su- 
pernatural power  beyond  it. 

But  let  us  drop  this  play  of  correlative  words  about 
cause  and  effect,  aud  speak  of  God  as  a  Power.  What 
is  spoken  of  as  first  cause,  I  call  an  intelligent,  self- 
directing,  omnipresent,  personal  Power,  from  which 
all  other  power  is  derived,  realizing  a  purpose,  and 
originating  and  sustaining  all  things.  Absolute  Being 
or  existence  is  uncaused.  This  efficient  Power  is  al- 
together outside  and  before  the  whole  chain  of  what 
is  called  cause  and  effect;  and,  in  this  sense,  we  find 
God  everywhere  in  the  universe,  manifesting  himself 
as  "  an  endless  series  of  efficient  causes."  That  power 
which  is  found  behind,  around,  above  and  in  all  things, 
by  whatever  name  we  know  it,  is  what  religion  adores 
as  an  omnipresent,  personal  Will,  or  God.  Before 
leaving  the  subject  of  will-power  as  cause,  let  me 
notice  the  proposition  that  "  every  effect  must  in  turn 
become  a  cause  ;  "  but  it  does  not  follow  that  every 
cause  must  have  first  been  an  effect.  If  there  is  any 
mental  or  moral  freedom  in  the  universe,  Will  is  a 
cause  that  never  was  an  effect ;  and  this  will,  whether 


Life  is  from  Life.  2  7 

its  action  be  ascertained  by  consciousness  or  by  ob- 
servation and  the  experiments  in  science,  or  by  the 
history  of  men  and  nations,  we  say  is  the  Will  of  God. 

(b)  In  derivative  manifestations,  the  first  organism 
being  created,  the  second  is  genetically  derived  from 
the  first,  like  from  like,  roses  from  roses,  fish  from 
fish,  birds  from  birds,  men  from  men.  The  first  or- 
ganism, like  the  first  atom,  was  created,  not  derived  ; 
the  second  organism  was  derived  from  the  first,  not 
created.  The  noumenon  creates  and  causes  phe- 
nomena, and  organism  derives  from  organism.  De- 
rived nature  inherits  the  power  that  created  it,  and 
transmits  it  as  genetic  Function.  The  nature  of  the 
parent  is  in  the  child,  the  nature  of  the  seed  is  in 
the  rose,  and  the  nature  of  the  rose  is  in  the  seed  ; 
sweet  waters  are  from  sweet  fountains,  and  bitter 
waters  are  from  bitter  fountains.  In  causation,  the 
subsequent  effect  is  unlike  the  antecedent  cause,  as 
the  shadow  is  unlike  the  sun,  or  as  pain  is  unlike  the 
blow  that  causes  it. 

First,  in  derivative  manifestations  of  like  from  like, 
life  in  manifestation  is  derived  from  an  antecedent 
life  in  the  manifesting  Power.  The  one  unlimited 
Power  of  life  limits  itself  in  the  different  manifesta- 
tions of  life  in  tree  and  bird  and  man.  Spontaneous 
generation  is  not  only  not  proved,  but  it  is  emphati- 
cally denied.  As  life  is  a  fact,  if  it  be  not  spontane- 
ously generated,  it  must  be  either  eternal,  or  super- 
naturally  originated.  If  according  to  Mr.  Spencer, 
there  never  has  been  an  absolute  commencement  of 
anything,  then  human  life  must  be  eternal  in  eternal 
superhuman  life.     Some  materialists  have  searched 


28         The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

and  experimented  in  vain  to  find  a  material  cause  of 
life ;  but  Mr.  Spencer  says  "  I  do  not  believe  in  the 
'  spontaneous  generation '  commonly  alleged."  *  * 
*  "  That  creatures  having  quite  specific  structures  are 
evolved  in  the  course  of  a  few  hours,  without  antece- 
dents calculated  to  determine  their  specific  forms,  is 
incredible.  Not  only  the  established  truths  of  Biol- 
ogy, but  the  established  truths  of  science  in  general, 
negative  the  supposition  that  organisms  having  struc- 
tures definite  enough  to  identify  as  belonging  to 
known  genera  and  species,  can  be  produced  in  the 
absence  of  germs  derived  from  antecedent  organ- 
isms of  the  same  genera  and  species."  (  i  Bio.  480, 
Appendix.)  "  Construed  in  terms  of  evolution,  every 
kind  of  being  is  conceived  as  a  product  of  modifica- 
tions wrought  by  insensible  gradations  on  a  pre-exist- 
ing kind  of  being;  and  this  holds  as  fully  of  the  sup- 
posed commencement  of  organic  life,  as  of  all  subse- 
quent developments  of  organic  life.''  (1  Bio.,  p.  <82.) 
Prof.  Tyndall,  approving  of  Prof.  Virchow's  denial 
of  spontaneous  generation,  says  ( Sup.  Pop.  Sci., 
April,  1878,  p.  511),  "I  share  his  opinion  that  the 
theory  of  evolution  in  its  complete  form  involves  the 
assumption,  that  at  some  period  or  other  of  the  world's 
history,  there  occurred  what  would  now  be  called 
'  spontaneous  generation.'  I  agree  with  him  that  "  the 
proofs  of  it  are  still  wanting.  Whoever  recalls  to 
mind  the  lamentable  failure  of  all  the  attempts  made 
very  recently  to  discover  a  decided  support  for  gene- 
ratio  (zquivoca  in  the  lower  forms  of  transition  from 
the  inorganic  to  the  organic  world,  will  feel  it  doubly 
serious  to  demand    that  this  theory,  so  utterly  dis- 


Tyndall  Denies  Spo?tta?zeous  Generation.     29 

credited,  should  be  in  any  way  accepted  as  the  basis 
of  all  our  views  of  life."  "  I  hold  with  Virchow,  that 
the  failures  have  been  lamentable,  that  the  doctrine  is 
utterly  discredited." 

Prof.  Tyndall  says  {lb.),  "  No  denier  of  the  potency 
of  matter  could  labor  more  strenuously  than  I  have 
done,  to  demonstrate  its  impotence  as  regards  spon- 
taneous generation.  While  expressing,  therefore,  un- 
shaken "belief"  in  that  form  of  materialism  to  which 
I  have  already  given  utterance,  I  here  affirm  that  no 
shred  of  trustworthy  experimental  testimony  exists 
to  prove  that  life,  in  our  day,  has  ever  appeared  inde- 
pendently of  antecedent  life.''  This  is  derivation,  and 
not  causation.  That  object  which  is  caused  does  not 
depend  on  an  antecedent  like  object ;  but  rather  on  an 
antecedent  unlike  power.  Prof.  Tyndall  distinctly 
places  the  presence  of  life  upon  a  derivation  from 
antecedent  life.  Matter,  without  life,  is  first  created 
and  then  causatively  combined,  not  derived.  In  other 
words,  all  atoms  are  created ;  all  combinations  of 
atoms  are  caused.  Where  Power  stops  creating,  it 
begins  to  cause.  In  matter  with  life,  the  matter  is 
caused  and  the  life  is  derived  ;  hence  while  matter  is 
from  power,  life  is  from  that  form  of  power  known  as 
life. 

Prof.  T.  further  says,  (see  "  Vitality,"  Fragments, 
ed.,  1878,  p.  459):  "In  tracing  these  phenomena 
through  all  their  modifications,  the  most  advanced 
philosophers  of  the  present  day  declare  that  they 
ultimately  arrive  at  a  single  source  of  power,  from 
which  all  vital  energy  is  derived."  As  this  derived 
energy  is  life,  there  must  be  life  in  the  underived 


30         The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

Power.  The  dependence  of  this  derived,  natural 
life  on  antecedent,  supernatural  life,  determines  the 
origin  of  all  attributes  of  life,  such  as  mind,  will  and 
consciousness.  Life  everywhere  is  one  and  the  same 
Power,  derived  or  underived,  manifested  or  unmani- 
fested. 

Second,  Will  in  manifestation  is  derived  from  ante- 
cedent will  in  manifesting  Power.  We  are  conscious 
of  a  will-power,  though  we  may  not  be  able  to  define 
it.  I  open  and  close  my  hand,  and  learn  that  my 
will  is  power.  All  that  we  know  of  our  personal 
power  is  in  our  wills;  and  we  know  that  will  is 
power.  Power  is  manifested  as  conscious  Will  in 
man,  and  as  unconscious  Force  in  nature,  both 
organic  and  inorganic.  And  though,  as  Mr.  Spencer 
says,  (F.  P.,  §  18),  "the  exercise  of  force  is  altogether 
unintelligible,"  and  though  we  may  say  that  the  exer- 
cise of  Will  is  also  unintelligible,  yet,  we  know  that 
Will  acts,  and  we  know  that  Force  acts ;  and  both 
Will  and  Force  are  special  names  of  a  general  power. 
Wallace  says:  "If,  therefore,  we  have  traced  one 
force,  however  minute,  to  an  origin  in  our  Will,  while 
we  have  no  knowledge  of  any  other  primary  cause 
of  force,  it  does  not  seem  an  improbable  conclusion 
that  all  force  will  be  Will-Force  and  thus  that  the 
whole  universe  is  not  merely  dependent  on,  but  actu- 
ally is  the  Will  of  higher  intelligencies,  or  of  One 
Supreme  Intelligence."  (Natural  Selection,  p.  368, 
Sec.  Ed.)  If  Will  is  Force,  and  Force  is  Will,  we 
readily  agree  with  Mr.  Spencer  that  "  the  creation  of 
Force  is  as  inconceivable  as  the  creation  of  Matter," 
(1  Bro.  §  112.)     Uncreated  and  unlimited  Will-Power 


Will  is  from    Will.  3 1 

acts,  and  its  act  is  Force.  But  this  Will-Power  Mr. 
S.  emphatically  denies,  even  in  the  face  of  the  proof, 
by  his  own  experience.  He  says,  "  In  one  case  after 
another  is  abandoned  that  interpretation  which  as- 
cribes phenomena  to  a  Will  analogous  to  the  human 
Will,  working  by  methods  analogous  to  human  meth- 
ods," (1  Bio.  §  1 1 1.)  But,  if  we  affirm  the  human  will 
and  methods,  how  can  we  deny  the  superhuman  will 
and  methods?  Whence  is  the  human  if  not  from  the 
superhuman  ?  It  cannot  be  from  an  origin  less  than 
human,  for  the  cause  is  always  greater  than  its  effect. 
But,  if  we  deny  unlimited  superhuman  Will-Power 
in  the  universe,  we  must,  in  the  face  of  our  conscious- 
ness, it  would  seem,  deny  limited,  human  Will-Power 
in  ourselves.  If  human  Power  is  human  Will,  why 
should  not  superhuman  Power  be  superhuman  Will? 
The  way  of  Will  is  the  way  of  Power,  and  the  way 
ot  Power,  except  as  to  miracles  and  special  provi- 
dences, is  method  ;  but  that  which  to  man  is  method 
is  not  method  to  supernatural  Will  itself.  Will  as 
Will  is  not  neeessarily  bound  by  method.  While 
wefind  uniformity  of  will  in  law,  we  need  not  be 
surprised  to  find  multiformity  of  will  in  miracles 
and  special  providences.  Above  many  forces  is  one 
Power,  and  that  one  Power  is  Will. 

Mr.  Spencer  declares  that  "  each  further  advance 
of  knowledge  confirms  the  belief  in  the  unity  of 
Nature  (1  Bio.  §  117.)  But  if  one  "  Power  unlimited 
in  time  and  space  "  accounts  for  the  universe,  and 
that  Power  is  Will,  the  unity  of  nature  is  in  the  unity 
of  Will.     The  logic  of  evolution  must  be  consistent. 

We    shall   not   always    particularize    whether    we 


?2         The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 


o 


speak  of  the  omnific  Power  as  becoming-  or  as  creat- 
ing phenomena.  The  elastic  word  manifestation  will 
be  used  to  mean  the  creation  by  Power,  or  the  meta- 
morphosis of  Power.  Which  it  is,  is  a  secret  with 
omniscience.  What  matters  it  to  us  whether  Power 
becomes  or  creates  impersonal  thing's,  so  long  as  the 
personality  of  that  Power  is  infinite  and  omnipres- 
ent? That  is  a  question  for  God  Himself.  This  will 
be  discussed  more  fully  when  law  is  discussed. 

Third,  Mind  in  manifestation  is  derived  from  ante- 
cedent mind  in  manifesting  Power.  That  which 
controlls  matter,  as  some  understand  matter,  is  not 
matter,  as  gravitation,  heat,  etc.  Dr.  Carpenter  says : 
"  The  culminating  point  of  man's  intellectual  inter- 
pretation of  nature  may  be  said  to  be  his  recognition 
of  the  unity  of  power,  of  which  her  phenomena  are 
the  diversified  manilestations.  Toward  this  all  sci- 
entific inquiry  now  tends.  For  the  convertibility  of 
the  physical  forces,  the  correlation  of  these  with  the 
vital,  and  the  intimacy  of  that  nexus  between  mental 
and  bodily  activity,  which,  explain  as  we  may,  can- 
not be  denied,  all  lead  upward  toward  one  and  the 
same  conclusions — the  source  of  all  power  in  Mind. 
*  *  *  And  thus,  whilst  the  deep-seated  instincts 
of  humanity,  and  the  profoundest  researches  of  phil- 
osophy alike  point  to  the  Mind  as  the  one  and  only 
source  of  power,  it  is  the  high  prerogative  of  science 
to  demonstrate  the  unity  of  the  power  which  is  ope- 
rating through  the  limitless  extent  and  variety  of 
the  universe,  and  to  trace  its  continuity  through  the 
vast  series  of  ages  that  have  been  occupied  in  its  evo- 
lution."    (Carpenter's  Mental  Physiology,  sec.  576.) 


Co?iscious  Power  from   Conscious  Power.    33 


I  think  of  a  friend  or  an  enemy,  and  my  blood 
runs  to  or  from  my  heart — I  smile  or  I  frown,  as  I 
love  or  as  I  hate,  in  spite  of  all  will.  Indeed,  mind 
is  a  power  of  its  own. 

Fourth,  conscious  mind  in  manifestation  is  a  gift 
from  an  antecedent,  conscious  mind  in  the  manifest- 
ing Power.  The  superhuman  set  off  something  of 
itself  in  the  human.  We  speak  of  the  conscious  and 
of  the  unconscious,  or  rather,  as  we  should  say,  the 
not-conscious.  We  must  remember  that  we  are  con- 
sidering the  consciousness  or  unconsciousness  of  un- 
limited and  eternal  Power,  not  of  its  manifestations; 
for  they  are  not  eternal.  Some  of  the  manifestations 
are  conscious  and  some  not-conscious.  If  unlimited 
Power  was  eternally  not  conscious,  how  did  it  mani- 
fest limited  consciousness  in  man?  If  it  were  eter- 
nally conscious,  how  did  it  manifest  the  not-conscious 
in  things?  Always  the  unlike  from  unlike,  is  causa- 
tive, carrying  somewhat  of  the  pozver  of  the  antece- 
dent into  the  subsequent ;  but  the  manifestation  of  the 
conscious  from  the  conscious  being  like  from  like,  is 
derivative,  carrying  somewhat  of  the  unlimited  attri- 
butes of  the  antecedent  into  the  limited  subsequent. 
The  derivation  of  human  consciousness  from  what 
we  call  superhuman  unconsciousness,  is  impossible  ; 
for  there  is  no  unconscious  Power,  as  such,  for  the 
conscious  to  be  derived  from.  In  itself,  Power  must 
be  unchangeably  conscious  or  unconscious,  but  it 
cannot  he  alternately  one  or  the  other.  The  uncon- 
scious is  not  an  entity,  but  the  absence  of  an  entity. 
The  positive,  —  consciousness, —  cannot  be  derived 
from  the  negative,  unconsciousness.  From  nothing, 
nothing  is.  Conscious  Power  knows  how  to  manifest 
3 


34         The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 


o 


the  unconscious ;  but  an  unconscious  Power,  if  such 
a  Power  could  be,  would  not  know  how  to  manifest 
the  conscious.  The  greatest  Power  is  in  the  greatest 
knowledge.  We  see,  as  a  fact,  that  unlimited  Power 
manifests  conscious  persons  and  things  that  are  not 
conscious. 

What  is  consciousness  ?  Consciousness,  as  just 
said,  is  not  only  to  think,  but  to  think  about  our 
thought ;  not  only  to  know,  but  to  know  that  we 
know.  The  horse  may  think,  but  we  have  not  dis- 
covered that  he  thinks  about  his  thought,  or  that  he 
knows  that  he  knows. 

Mr.   Spencer  says  (Pop.   Sci.,  Jan.,   1884):     "The 
power  which  manifests  itself  in  consciousness  is  but 
a  differently  conditioned  form  of   the  power  which 
manifests  itself  beyond  consciousness."      As  human 
life  is  derived   from  underived  superhuman  life,  so 
human    consciousness    is    derived    from    underived 
superhuman    consciousness.     If    Power   includes  its 
manifestations,   the   Power  includes   both   conscious 
force  and  form  that  is  not  conscious ;    for  matter  is 
one  and  mind  is  the  other.     If  Power  is  unconscious, 
it  manifested  consciousness  in  personal  man;    if  it  is 
conscious,  it  could  not  lose  its  consciousness  when  it 
manifested  forms  that  were  not  conscious  and  matter 
that  was  not  personal.     We  must  distinguish  between 
derivation  when  Power  is  an  ancestor  and  imparts  its 
own  likeness,  and  causation,  when    Power,  like  the 
spider  spinning  from  itself  a  web  unlike  itself,  mani- 
fests or  constructs  things  that  are  unlike  itself.     The 
unlimited    Power   that    manifests   all   things  is  con- 
scious ;  because  unconsciousness,  being  the  absence 
of  consciousness,  as  cold  is  the  absence  of   heat,  is 


Conscious  Power  from   Consczotis  Power.    35 

only  a  negative  condition,  and  not  power  at  all.  As  it 
is  not  power,  it  can  be  neither  cause  nor  an  effect :  it 
cannot  know  anything,  do  anything,  or  be  anything. 
As  we  understand  the  theory  of  agnostic  evolution, 
all  things  are  eternally  evolved  from  underived,  nec- 
essary unity,  or  from  underived  necessary  plurality. 
But  nothing  could  be  evolved  from  underived  plural- 
ity, for  plurality  itself  is  evolved  from  underived 
unity  ;  therefore  underived  unity  excludes  underived 
plurality.  This  underived  unity  was  either  con- 
sciously intelligent,  or  unconsciously  unintelligent. 
If  it  were  consciously  intelligent,  it  knew  how  to 
manifest  the  unconsciously  unintelligent ;  but  if  it 
were  unconsciously  unintelligent,  it  did  not  know 
how  to  manifest  the  consciously  intelligent.  Con- 
sciousness, whether  derived  or  underived,  is  exclus- 
ively an  individual  intuition.  There  is  nothing  in 
the  consciousness  of  one  that  could  be  in  the  con- 
sciousness of  another.  Unconsciousness,  on  the  con- 
trary, is  a  state  common  to  different  things,  such  as 
trees,  seas,  stones  and  stars,  and  there  is  nothing  in 
the  unconsciousness  of  the  stars  that  is  not  in  the  un- 
consciousness of  a  stone.  Indeed,  unconsciousness 
is  only  the  absence  of  consciousness.  Exclusive  at- 
tributes distinguish  the  underived  absolute  and  eter- 
nal unit;  consciousness  is  an  exclusive  attribute; 
therefore  consciousness  distinguished  the  underived 
absolute  and  eternal  unit.  The  original,  underived 
Unit  was,  therefore,  exclusively  conscious ;  for  though 
this  underived,  absolute,  conscious,  superhuman  Unit 
may  manifest  limited  human,  individual  conscious- 
ness, it  can  never  share  its  own  consciousness.  The 
power  to  be  conscious  may  be  derived,  but  not  the 


36         The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 


o 


contents  of  consciousness.  If  the  original  Unit  was 
a  Unit  of  will,  of  mind  and  of  power,  it  was  a  con- 
scious unit,  and  if  conscious,  it  was  personal,  and  if 
it  were  personal  it  was  that  supernature  which  we 
call  God. 

We  started  with  an  universally  admitted  power. 
Power  is  derived  or  underived.  If  it  is  derived  it  is 
not  eternal ;  if  it  is  eternal,  it  is  underived.  To  apply 
this :  we  are  persons ;  personality  is  in  consciousness; 
consciousness  is  either  derived  or  underived.  Hu- 
man consciousness  cannot  be  underived,  for,  though 
immortal,  it  is  not  eternal ;  as  it  is  not  eternal  it  is 
derived.  We  could  not  derive  our  power  of  con- 
sciousness from  any  derived  power  of  consciousness 
below  us  ;  we  must,  therefore,  derive  our  power  of 
consciousness  from  underived  power  of  conscious- 
ness above  us.  If  derived  power  of  consciousness  is 
derived  personality,  so  underived  power  of  conscious- 
ness is  underived  personality.  The  admission  of  a 
derived  power  of  human  consciousness  admits  an  un- 
derived superhuman  power  of  consciousness,  from 
which  was  possible  for  it  to  be  derived — that  is,  the 
derived  implies  the  underived. 

Mr.  Spencer  speaks  of  "the  one  absolute  certainty, 
that  he  (man)  is  ever  in  the  presence  of  an  Infinite 
and  Eternal  Energy,  from  which  all  things  proceed." 
{Pop.  Sci.  M.,  Jan.,  1884.)  If  this  Eternal  Energy 
from  which  we  proceed,  could  send  us  forth  with  a 
knowledge  of  ourselves,  has  this  Energy  no  knowl- 
edge of  its  own  self  ?     Like  is  from  like. 

Fifth,  that  conscious  power  called  human  person- 
ality is  the  manifestation  of  an  antecedent  conscious 
Power    we    call    superhuman    personality.     Uncon- 


Personality  from  Personality.  $7 

sciousness  in  nature  is  the  absence  of  that  antecedent 
consciousness  in  supernature,  called  impersonal.  A 
negative  is  the  absence  of  a  positive. 

Sir  John  F.  W.  Herschell  says  ("  Popular  Lectures," 
XII),  "  In  the  only  case  in  which  we  are  admitted  into 
personal  knowledge  of  the  origin  of  force,  we  find 
it  connected  with  volition,  and  by  inevitable  conse- 
quence with  motive  and  intellect,  and  with  all  those 
attributes  of  mind  in  which  personality  consists  * 
*  *  It  matters  not  that  we  are  ignorant  of  the  mode 
in  which  this  is  performed.  It  suffices  to  bring  the 
origination  of  dynamical  power,  to  however  small 
extent,  within  the  domain  of  acknowledged  person- 
ality. In  that  peculiar  mental  sensation,  clear  to  the 
apprehension  of  every  one  who  has  ever  performed 
a  voluntary  act,  which  is  present  at  the  instant  when 
the  determination  to  do  a  thing  is  carried  out  with  the 
act  of  doing  it,  we  have  a  consciousness  of  immediate 
and  personal  cansatio7i  which  cannot  be  disputed  or 
ignored." 

From  the  point  of  our  own  conscious,  derived  per- 
sonal power,  unconscious,  impersonal,  underived 
Power  is  unthinkable.  Personality,  as  we  have  said, 
is  but  a  name  given  to  the  cumulative  attributes  of 
life,  will,  intelligence  and  consciousness ;  just  as  we 
call  the  combination  of  oxygen  and  hydrogen,  water, 
or  as  we  call  the  roots,  trunk,  branches,  top  of  a  tree, 
a  tree. 

Consciousness  and  personality  are  one  and  the 
same.  Consciousness  that  we  have  considered,  cov- 
ers the  whole  idea  of  personality  that  we  are  now 
considering.  We  but  use  a  different  word  for  the 
same  idea.     Consciousness  is  the  one,  highest  human 


38        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

attribute  ;  and  personality  implies  the  sum  of  all  the 
attributes  of  life,  will,  intelligence,  and  consciousness. 
There  can  be  life,  will,  and  intelligence,  as  in  the 
horse,  without  consciousness;  but  there  cannot  be 
consciousness,  as  in  man,  without  life,  will  and  intelli- 
gence. 

The  admission  of  science,  as  expressed  by  Prof. 
Tyndall  and  by  Mr.  Spencer,  that  life  depends  on 
antecedent  life,  carries  with  it  the  admission  that  life 
with  will,  intelligence  and  consciousness,  depends  on 
antecedent  life,  will,  intelligence  and  consciousness  ; 
and  this  is  all  that  is  meant  by  personality ;  and  all 
that  is  affirmed  by  religion.  If  human,  conscious 
power,  as  the  culmination  of  human  intelligence,  will, 
and  life  is  dependent  on  antecedent  superhuman  con- 
scious Power,  intelligence,  will  and  life,  there  need  be 
no  further  proof  that  human  personality  is  dependent 
on,  and  proves  superhuman  personality. 

Consciousness,  as  the  highest  entity,  is  called  per- 
sonal, to  distinguish  it  from  a  large  class  of  uncon- 
scious things,  classified  as  impersonal,  because  uncon- 
scious. These  impersonal  things  are  without  life,  as 
the  stone  ;  or  with  life,  as  the  tree  ;  or  with  life,  will, 
and  intelligence,  as  the  horse.  But,  not  thinking 
about  his  thoughts,  so  far  as  is  known,  or  not  know- 
ing that  he  knows,  the  horse,  with  life,  will  and  intel- 
ligence, but  wanting  consciousness,  is  not  a  person, 
but  only  a  thing  not-personal.  Man,  however,  has  not 
only  life,  will,  intelligence,  or  thoughts,  but  he  thinks 
about  his  thoughts  —he  knows  that  he  knows  —  in 
other  words,  he  is  conscious,  and  therefore  is  a  per- 
son. If  life  depends  on  antecedent  life,  a  fortiori, 
conscious   power  depends  on  antecedent  conscious 


Personality  from  Personality.  39 

Power.  Human  consciousness  develops  as  human 
life  develops.  As  the  perfection  of  one,  so  is  the  per- 
fection of  the  other.  So  that  human  consciousness  or 
personality  proves  superhuman  consciousness  or  per- 
sonality, if  we  accept,  as  valid,  Prof.  Tyndall's  scien- 
tific denial  of  spontaneous  generation  as  we  have  seen  ; 
and  also  his  doctrine,  that  all  life  depends  on  antece- 
dent life.  Thus,  human  life  has  its  antecedent  in 
superhuman  life;  and,  as  human  life  has  will,  its  an- 
tecedent superhuman  life  has  will ;  and,  as  human  life 
has  intelligence,  its  antecedent  superhuman  life  has 
intelligence  ;  and,  as  human  life  is  conscious,  its  ante- 
cedent, superhuman  life  is  conscious.  As  human  life 
having  these  attributes  of  life,  will,  intelligence,  and 
consciousness,  is  called  personal,  so  its  antecedent 
superhuman  life,  being  the  source  of  these  attributes 
in  man,  must  be  called  personal. 

Where  there  is  no  life,  as  is  the  case  of  the  inor- 
ganic atom,  there  can  be  no  derivation  of  like  from 
like  ;  but  only  a  causation  of  unlike  from  unlike.  One 
lifeless  atom  is  not  derived  from  another  lifeless  atom, 
but  is  caused  by  adequate  Power;  but  where  there  is 
life,  there  is  derivation  either  by  direct  emanation  or 
transmission  from  the  infinite  to  the  finite,  or  indi- 
rectly, like  from  like,  by  genetic  function.  Having 
considered  consciousness  and  unconsciousness  as  to 
unlimited  Power,  let  us  now  turn  to  the  consideration 
of  consciousness  and  unconsciousness  as  attributes 
respectively  of  limited  persons  and  things.  If  the 
antecedent  of  conscious  person  is  conscious  Power, 
must  the  antecedent  of  unconscious  things  be  an  un- 
conscious Power?     By  no  means;  for, 


4<D         The  Philosophy  of  the  StipcrnaturaL 

(c)     The  order  of  manifestation,  whether  by  causa- 
tion or  by  derivation,  is, 

First,  as  something  cannot  come  out  of  nothing,  to 
magnify  the  effect  is  to  maximize  the  cause  :  8+2=  10. 
As  you  add  to  the  subsequent  you  must  add  to  the 
antecedent — the  greater  manifests  the  less ;  in  other 
words,    Power    is    greater    than    its    manifestations. 
The   infinite    Subject   manifests   the   finite   object  — 
the    Noumenon    manifests    the    phenomenon.     The 
circle  includes  its  diameter,  chords,  and  segments : 
a  gallon   measure  is  never  from  a  pint  cup :    there 
must  be  a  whole  before,  there  can  be  a  part.     This, 
of  course,  applies  to  unlimited  Power  and  its  limit- 
ed manifestations.     To  unlimited  Power  itself,  there 
is  neither  greater  nor  less.     Unlimited  Power  is  sim- 
ply   unlimited    Power.      From    the    conscious,    de- 
rived   power  of   life   in    man,  we    prove    conscious, 
underived    life   as   antecedent   in   unlimited    Power. 
Power  must  come  from  Power.     Could  limited,  hu- 
man, conscious  life,  come  from  an  unlimited,  antece- 
dent,  superhuman,   unconscious  life?     We  say,  no; 
for  that  superhuman,  antecedent  life  on  which  Prof. 
T.  says  all  subsequent  human  life  depends,  must  be 
altogether  conscious  or  altogether  unconscious.     If 
it  is  altogether   unconscious,  then  this   superhuman 
unconscious    Power    manifested     human    conscious 
power.     The  powerless  could  not  manifest  the  pow- 
erful.   But,  that  is  impossible ;  for  as  finite  knowledge 
is  supreme  over  infinite  nescience,  so  a  great  effect 
could  not  come  out  of  a  less  cause.     But,  suppose 
that  human  finite  conscious  power  proves  superhu- 
man, infinite,   conscious   Power,  there  could   not  be 
infinite  unconscious  Power,  for  there  cannot  be  two 


Great  Effects  imply   Greater  Causes.      41 

infinities.  Did  eternal  and  infinite  consciousness 
come  out  of  eternal  and  infinite  unconsciousness? 
In  the  same  abstract  subject,  unconsciousness  is  the 
absence  of  consciousness;  and  consciousness  could 
not  come  out  of  its  own  absence. 

The  conscious  Power,  unlimited  in  time  and  space, 
that  we  claim  to  have  proved,  that  knows  everything, 
cannot  be  derived  from  itself  as  a  Power  unlimited 
in  time  and  space  in  an  unconscious  state,  that  knows 
nothing.  Assuming  that  conscious  Power  is  su- 
preme over  an  imaginary  unconscious  power,  the 
one  unlimited  Power  must  be  conscious,  not  only 
because,  on  lines  of  life,  like  is  from  like,  as  con- 
scious human  life  from  conscious  superhuman  life, 
but  because,  if  conscious  persons  came  from  uncon- 
scious Power,  whether  as  an  effect  from  a  cause,  the 
derived  from  the  underived,  as  a  manifestation  of 
Power,  the  effect  would  be  greater  than  its  cause — 
the  derived  would  be  greater  than  the  underived — 
the  manifestation  would  be  greater  than  the  mani- 
festing Power.  But  to  say  that  the  derived  is  less 
than  the  underived,  is  axiomatic,  and  covers  all  facts. 
The  manifestations  are  less  than  the  manifesting  Pow- 
er— the  limited  than  the  unlimited — the  particular 
than  the  universal — the  unconscious  than  the  con- 
scious— the  relative  than  the  absolute.  We  see  that 
unlimited  Power  limited  its  manifestation  in  the  first 
atom,  by  withholding  life  and  intelligence.  But  as  a 
limited  atom  did  not  exhaust  unlimited  Power,  so,  un- 
limited Power  manifested  something  more  of  itself 
when  it  organized  the  atoms  by  manifesting  vegetable 
life.  Still,  Power  was  greater  than  its  manifestations. 
Power  manifested  animal,  individual  life,  will  and  in- 


42         The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

telligence.  Still  Power  was  greater  than  its  manifes- 
tation. But,  far  more  than  all  was  Power  greater 
than  its  manifestation,  when,  in  man,  it  manifested 
life,  will,  intelligence  and  consciousness — in  other 
words,  when  limited  human  life  and  consciousness 
was  derived  from  unlimited  superhuman  life  and 
consciousness.  We  are  always  going  back  to  some- 
thing greater  than  we  know.  The  boundary  of  the 
Infinite  ever  recedes  as  we  approach  it.  Thus  the 
Eternal  marks  off  segments  of  itself,  and  we  call  it 
Time.  We  look  at  the  Infinite  through  a  reversed 
telescope,  and  call  it  finite;  but  in  all  things  and 
everywhere,  Power  is  greater  than  its  manifestations. 
If  we  trace  human  life — intelligent,  conscious  voli- 
tional and  personal — back  along  its  endless  line  of 
antecedent  life,  must  not  its  intelligence,  will,  con- 
sciousness, and  personality  go  back  all  along  the  line 
with  it?  How,  where,  when,  and  why  stop  or  sepa- 
rate them  ?  Shall  they  be  in  the  subsequent  and  not 
in  the  antecedent  ?  in  the  derived  greater  than  in  the 
underived?  Power  is  life  and  will  and  mind.  Who 
can  prove  that  gravitation  and  other  forces  in  matter 
are  not  modes  or  movements  of  supernatural  life,  in- 
telligence, and  will  of  the  one  unlimited  Power? 
This  unlimited  Power  has  both  life  and  mind ;  for  it 
is  neither  blind  as  a  force,  nor  unintelligent  in  its 
method.  If  it  were,  its  phenomena  could  not  be 
scientifically  studied.  Gravitation  is  not  blind,  but 
always  pulls  directly  as  to  mass  and  inversely  as  to 
the  square  of  the  distance.  Nor  is  chemic  affinity 
blind  ;  for  it  never  combines  three  parts  by  weight 
of  oxygen  to  two  parts  of  hydrogen  when  it  pro- 
duces water.     Nor  are  the  methods  of  Power  blind ; 


Personality  front  Perso7iality.  43 

for  in  evolution  as  defined  by  Mr.  Spencer,  matter  in- 
tegrates only  as  motion  dissipates.  What  we  call 
blind  force  sees  its  way  free  of  all  mistakes  or  irreg- 
ularities. Life  must  be  conscious  to  be  human.  If 
science  will  adhere  to  its  emphatic  denial  of  spon- 
taneous generation  and  to  its  doctrine  of  the  depend- 
ance  of  all  life  upon  antecedent  life,  as  formulated  by 
Prof.  Tyndall,  we  must  come  back  to  the  old  doctrine 
of  the  production  of  effects  from  causes,  and  see 
that  all  along  lines  of  life,  like  is  always  from  like. 
Life  goes  back  to  life,  consciousness  to  consciousness, 
the  personal  to  the  personal,  until  lines  of  derivation 
vanish  in  the  Infinite.  As  we  have  said  one  primary 
element  like  carbon  or  oxygen  is  not  from  another 
primary  element.  Neither  element  by  itself  is  a 
cause  or  an  effect.  As  unconsciousness  is  nothing 
but  the  absence  of  consciousness,  and  as  impersonal- 
ity is  nothing  but  the  absence  of  personality,  so  hu- 
man personal  power  must  come  from  superhuman 
personal  Power ;  because  as  superhuman  impersonal 
Power  is  merely  the  absence  of  superhuman  personal 
power,  superhuman  personal  power  cannot  be  derived 
from  its  own  absence.  Unlimited  Power  is  one ; 
subtract  its  personal  power,  and  there  remains  nothing. 
From  nothing,  nothing  can  come. 

Neither  the  not-personal  nor  the  not-conscious  can 
be  a  factor  or  cause  ;  for  being  nothing,  they  can  do 
nothing.  That  which  does,  is  that  which  is ;  but  un- 
consciousness as  such,  and  impersonality  as  such,  are 
nothing  ;  and  the  power  of  nothing  is  nothing.  We 
prove  the  derivation  of  human  conscinusness  or  per- 
sonality from  superhuman  consciousness  or  person- 
ality upon  the  derivative  principle  of  like  from  like, 


44         The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

and  upon  the  principle  common  to  both  derivative 
and  causative  manifestations,  of  the  less  from  the 
greater — the  less  effect  from  the  greater  cause,  or 
the  less  manifestation  from  the  greater  Power.  Thus 
superhuman  consciousness  or  personality  is  greater 
than  human  consciousness  or  personality  and  cannot 
be  derived  from  it;  and  human  consciousness  or  per- 
sonality is  greater  than  subhuman  things  that  are 
not-conscious  or  not-personal  and  cannot  be  derived 
from  them.  The  less,  therefore,  must  come  from  the 
greater,  and  not  the  greater  from  the  less. 

Besides,  as  we  have  seen  unconsciousness  to  be 
only  the  absence  of  consciousness,  so  impersonality 
is  only  the  absence  of  personality  ;  and  we  say  here, 
as  we  said  of  consciousness,  a  present  personality 
cannot  come  from  a  negation  of  personality — that 
is,  positive  personality  cannot  be  derived  from  its 
negative,  impersonality.  A  thing  cannot  be  derived 
from  that  which  is  not.  Unconsciousness,  or  imper- 
sonality are  not  entities,  but  only  the  negation,  or 
absence  of  the  entities,  consciousness  or  personality. 
Conscious  personality  cannot  be  derived  from  uncon- 
scious impersonality  ;  for  the  conscious  personality 
would  be  a  greater  from  a  less. 

The  relation  of  evolution  to  religion  is  thus  seen  to 
depend  upon  the  answer  to  the  question :  Is  super- 
human power  personal  or  impersonal  ?  If  the  power 
is  impersonal,  like  impersonal  power  in  the  main 
spring  of  a  watch,  with  the  maker  of  the  spring  out 
of  our  mind,  there  would  be  but  one  mechanical 
method,  and  nothing  for  religion.  But,  if,  as  we  see 
all  around  us,  there  is  one  free,  superhuman  Will,  this 
is  a  God,  with  everything  for  religion.     In  the  deriva- 


Personality  from  Personality.  45 

tive  continuity  of   heredity,  like  must  be  from  like. 

Derived  human  personality  implies  underived  su- 
perhuman personality.  Here  the  less  is  from  the 
greater.  Here  the  look  is  a  posteriori  from  a  personal 
man  back  to  a  personal  God.  A  human  personality 
as  a  present  fact,  proves  a  superhuman  personality  as 
a  past  Factor.  We  must  suppose  that  man  was  cre- 
ated to  be  a  genetic  creator  of  men  ;  for  such  he  is 
now  ;  and  we  must  suppose  that  man  was  created 
to  be  what  he  is.  There  are  no  mistakes  in  nature. 
Generation  is  a  human  mode  of  creation,  as  cre- 
ation is  a  superhuman  mode  of  Power.  If  we  are 
created,  we  can  be  personal  like  our  Creator,  if  He 
so  chooses ;  or,  if  we  are  generated,  we  must  be  per- 
sonally like  our  ancestor,  or  like  from  like.  We  are 
persons,  whether  created  or  generated ;  and  we  must 
have  a  Creator  or  a  Father. 

Personal  nature  and  not-personal  nature  are  both 
facts  ;  but  it  is  personal  nature  only  that  knows  any- 
thing of  the  not-personal  nature  ;  or,  to  state  it  other- 
wise, we  cannot  declare  a  thing  to  be  unless  it  is  known 
to  be  ;  therefore  nature  cannot  be  said  to  be  impersonal 
unless  there  is  a  personal  nature  to  know  and  say  it. 
Impersonality  converts  or  evolves  itself  into  person- 
ality when  it  speaks  of  itself. 

The  personality  of  God  is  one  of  the  vexed  and  ob- 
scure theological  and  philosophical  points  discussed 
by  John  Fiske  in  his  book  on  the  "  Idea  of  God." 
"To  every  form  of  theism,  as  I  have  already  urged, 
an  anthropomorphic  element  is  indispensable."  He 
says,  "  It  is  quite  true,  on  the  other  hand,  that  to 
ascribe  what  we  know  as  human  personality  to  the 
infinite  Deity,  straightway  lands  us  in  a  contradic- 


46         The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

tion,  since  personality  without  limit  is  inconceivable. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  no  less  true  that  the  total 
elimination  of  anthropomorphism  from  the  idea  of 
God  abolishes  the  idea  itself.  We  do  not  approach 
the  question  in  the  spirit  of  those  natural  theologians 
who  were  so  ready  with  their  explanations  of  the 
Divine  purposes.  We  are  aware  that  '  we  see  as 
through  a  glass  darkly,'  and  we  do  not  expect  to 
'  think  God's  thoughts  after  Him,'  save  in  the  crudest 
symbolic  fashion.  In  dealing  with  the  Infinite  we  are 
confessedly  treating  of  that  which  transcends  our 
powers  of  conception.  Our  ability  to  frame  ideas  is 
strictly  limited  by  experience,  and  our  experience 
does  not  furnish  the  materials  for  the  idea  of  a  per- 
sonality which  is  not  narrowly  hemmed  in  by  the 
inexorable  barriers  of  circumstance.  We  therefore 
cannot  conceive  of  such  an  idea.  But  it  does  not 
follow  that  there  is  no  reality  answering  to  what  such 
an  idea  would  be  if  it  could  be  conceived.  The  test 
of  inconceivability  is  only  applicable  to  the  world  of 
phenomena  from  which  our  experience  is  gathered. 
It  fails  when  applied  to  that  which  lies  behind  phe- 
nomena. I  do  not  hold,  for  this  reason,  that  we  are 
justified  in  using  such  an  expression  as  '  infinite  per- 
sonality '  in  a  philosophical  inquiry  where  clearness 
of  thought  and  speech  is  above  all  things  desirable. 
But  I  do  hold,  emphatically,  that  we  are  not  debarred 
from  ascribing  a  quasi  psychical  nature  to  the  Deity 
simply  because  we  can  frame  no  proper  conception 
of  such  a  nature  as  absolute  and  infinite." 

But  we  can  conceive  the  idea  of  omnipresent  per- 
sonality as  clearly  as  we  can  that  of  omnipresent 
space,  or  of  Power;  and  one  is  no  less  incomprehen- 


Omnipresent  Personality.  47 

sible  than  the  other.  Indeed,  they  are  but  names  for 
one  and  the  same  Power.  Power  is  omnipresent,  so 
is  Space,  Time,  life,  mind,  will,  consciousness  and 
personality,  whether  comprehensible  or  incompre- 
hensible.    We  derive  only  power. 

Mr.  Spencer  says  (F.  P.,  §  20),  "  The  personality  of 
which  each  is  conscious,  and  of  which  the  existence 
is  to  each  a  fact  beyond  all  others  the  most  certain, 
is  yet  a  thing  which  cannot  be  truly  known  at  all ; 
knowledge  of  it  is  forbidden  by  the  very  nature  of 
thought."  So,  the  inference  is,  that  as  we  cannot 
truly  know  ourselves,  we  cannot  know  the  Power 
not-ourselves.  But  religion  would  be  content  to 
know  this  Power  as  well  as  we  know  ourselves.  The 
unit  that  pluralizes  is  a  unit  of  Power ;  and  there  is 
no  power  in  the  unconscious.  From  the  one  Power 
came  many  manifestations.  In  man,  impersonal  mat- 
ter is  manifested  along  with  personal  mind,  and  un- 
conscious, impersonal  force;  such  as  animal  heat, 
along  with  conscious,  personal  power,  such  as  thought 
and  will.  If  there  is  anything  in  the  effect  that  is  in 
the  cause,  then  human  personality,  as  an  effect,  is 
from  superhuman  personality  as  its  cause.  If  it  be 
insisted  that  impersonal  matter  and  unconscious  force 
are  manifestations  of  an  impersonal  and  unconscious 
Power,  like  from  like,  then  it  is  claimed  a  fortiori, 
that  conscious,  personal  human  mind  and  will  are 
manifestations  of  a  conscious,  personal  superhuman 
mind  and  will.  If  the  cause  is  greater  than  its  effects 
—  the  underived  greater  than  the  derived  —  then 
human  consciousness  is  from  superhuman  conscious- 
ness, and  not  from  a  non-existing  superhuman,  imper- 
sonal unconsciousness  ;  for  this  would  be  to  make  the 


48         The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

cause  less  than  the  effect — indeed  to  have  an  effect 
from  no  cause  at  all ;  for  unconsciousness  is  only  a 
negative  state,  and  not  a  power,  and  cannot  be  either 
cause  or  effect.  Unconsciousness,  the  negative  of 
consciousness,  cannot  be  higher  than  the  conscious- 
ness of  which  it  is  the  negative.  Thus  the  philo- 
sophical bridge  between  human  personality  and  su- 
perhuman personality,  is,  first,  in  the  admitted  prin- 
ciple, that  the  cause  is  both  simpler  and  greater  than 
the  effect ;  and,  second,  in  the  proof  of  the  unity  of 
natural  force  and  supernatural  Power,  and  in  the  de- 
pendence of  life  upon  antecedent  life  —  that  is,  of 
natural  life  upon  supernatural  life.  If  this  be  not  so, 
we  must  altogether  discard  a  posteriori  reasoning. 

As  personal  beings  are  from  personal  beings,  so 
personal  being  must  be  originally  from  personal 
Being.  Personality  objective  in  human  beings  is 
subjective  personality  in  superhuman  Power.  Sub- 
jective Power  manifests,  or  objectifies  itself,  in  imper- 
sonal things  and  personal  beings ;  the  subjective  is 
known  in  the  objective.  If  Power  was  first,  and  at 
first  Power  was  all,  as  said  before,. Power  either  cre- 
ated matter  or  materialized  itself,  for  there  is  matter; 
Power  either  created  mind  or  mentalized  itself,  for 
there  is  mind ;  Power  either  created  life  or  vitalized 
itself,  for  there  is  life  ;  Power  either  created  persons 
or  personalized  itself,  for  there  is  personality.  If,  as 
we  have  said,  cause  is  greater  than  its  effects,  then 
the  cause  of  matter  is  greater  than  matter  its  effect ; 
the  cause  of  life  is  greater  than  life  its  effect ;  the 
cause  of  consciousness  is  greater  than  consciousness 
its  effect;  the  cause  of  human  personality  is  greater 
than  human  personality  its  effect.     But  only  super- 


To  Reduce  the  Cause  Red?ices  the  Effect.     49 

human  personality  is  greater  than  human  personality. 
As  positive  personality  from  a  negative  imperson- 
ality, or,  rather  a  thing  present  from  itself  absent, 
would  be  the  greater  from  the  less,  which  is  impossi- 
ble, so,  the  less  is  from  the  greater,  when  we  say  that, 

Second,  having  seen  that  to  magnify  the  effect  is 
to  maximize  the  cause,  so,  as  nothing  cannot  produce 
something,  to  minify  the  cause  is  to  minimize  the 
effect :  as  10  —  2  =  8.  As  you  subtract  from  the  an- 
tecedent you  subtract  from  the  subsequent.  Equals 
must  be  added  to  equals,  or  equals  must  be  taken  from 
equals,  the  less  is  manifested  by  the  greater— that  is, 
the  manifestations  of  Power  are  less  than  the  mani- 
festing Power.  If  natural  impersonality,  as  the  nega- 
tion or  absence  of  personality  in  things  is  called,  were 
derived  from  supernatural  personality,  such  a  deriva- 
tion, if  it  were  possible,  would  be  consistent  with  the 
principle  of  the  less  from  the  greater.  Keeping  in 
mind,  that  what  we  call  impersonality,  whether  hu- 
man or  superhuman,  is  only  the  negative  or  absence 
of  personality,  human  or  superhuman,  we  see  that 
impersonality,  whether  human  or  superhuman,  is  only 
where  personality  is  not  Impersonality  could  not 
come  from  impersonality  ;  for,  if  impersonality — a 
negative  —  were  to  come  from  impersonality — an- 
other negative — it  would  be  a  negative  from  a  nega- 
tive ;  which  is  absurd. 

As  human  personality  is  inherited  from  human 
personality  as  far  back  as  human  personality  can  be 
traced,  is  not  human  personality  derived  from  super- 
human personality,  or  phenomenal  personality  from 
nomenal  personality  ?  The  derivation  of  personality 
from  impersonality,  if  it  were  possible,  would  have 
4 


50         The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

to  be  strongly  proved,  in  order  to  disprove  the  law 
and  fact  of  heredity  of  like  from  like ;  but,  if  like  is 
not  from  like,  and  personality  is  from  impersonality, 
then,  in  unlike  from  unlike,  the  Creator  is  impersonal 
instead  of  personal,  and  agnosticism  dreads  an  im- 
personal Power  where  religion  worships  a  personal 
God.  But  a  conscious  effect  called  personality,  can- 
not come  from  an  unconscious  cause  called  imperson- 
ality, as  the  effect  would  be  greater  than  the  cause  ; 
but  a  conscious  cause  does  produce  an  unconscious 
effect,  and  the  effect  is  less  than  the  cause.  Uncon- 
sciousness, unknown  to  itself,  is  known  only  to  con- 
sciousness. 

Mr.  Spencer  says,  "  Some  make  the  erroneous 
assumption  that  the  choice  is  between  personality 
and  something  lower  than  personality  ;  whereas  the 
choice  is  rather  between  personality  and  something- 
higher.  Is  it  not  just  possible  that  there  is  a  mode  of 
being  as  much  transcending  intelligence  and  Will  as 
these  transcend  mechanical  motion  ?  It  is  true  that 
we  are  totally  unable  to  conceive  any  such  higher 
being.  But  this  is  not  a  reason  for  questioning  its 
existence  ;  it  is  rather  the  reverse.  Have  we  not  seen 
how  utterly  incompetent  our  minds  are  to  form  even 
an  approach  to  a  conception  of  that  which  underlies 
all  phenomena  ?  Is  it  not  proved  that  this  incompe- 
tency is  the  incompetency  of  the  conditioned  to  grasp 
the  unconditioned  ?  Does  it  not  follow  that  the  ulti- 
mate cause  cannot  in  any  respect  be  conceived  of  by 
us  because  it  is  in  every  respect  greater  than  can  be 
conceived  ?  And  may  we  not  therefore  rightly  re- 
frain from   assigning  to  it  any  attributes   whatever, 


Consciousness  is  Personality.  5  1 

on  the  ground  that  such  attributes,  derived  as  they 
must  be,  from  our  own  natures,  are  not  elevations, 
but  degradations?  Indeed  it  seems  somewhat  strange 
that  men  should  suppose  the  highest  worship  to  lie 
in  assimilating  the  object  of  their  worship  to  them- 
selves."    (F.  P.,  §31.) 

But  why  not  hope  to  assimilate  ourselves  below 
to  an  object  of  worship  above?  Of  course,  human 
personality  is  in  his  mind  ;  but  is  not  superhuman 
personality  that  very  something  higher  than  hu- 
man personality,  to  which  he  alludes?  What  is 
personality  ?  We  talk  about  persons  and  things. 
What  is  the  difference?  That  which  is  not  one,  is 
the  other.  Why  is  a  man  a  person,  and  an  intelli- 
gent brute,  and  unintelligent  objects  only  things? 
As  said  before,  the  man  thinks.  The  brute  thinks. 
The  man  thinks  about  his  thoughts,  or  is  conscious, 
and  for  that  reason  is  a  person.  The  brute  thinks,  but 
does  not  think  about  his  thoughts,  or  is  not  conscious, 
so  far  as  we  have  ascertained,  and  for  that  reason  is 
only  a  thing.  We  know  nothing  in  nature  higher 
than  consciousness.  But  to  repeat,  if  there  is  con 
sciousness  above  human  consciousness,  why  should 
not  such  superhuman  consciousness  constitute  super- 
human personality,  as  human  consciousness  consti- 
tutes human  personality  ?  Is  there  any  more  reason 
for  personality  in  nature  than  there  is  reason  for  it  in 
supernature?  If  superhuman  consciousness  be  ad- 
mitted, or  proved,  why  should  superhuman  person- 
ality be  denied  ?  Personality  does  not  ascend  from 
man  to  God,  but  descends  from  God  to  man.  His 
personality  is  underived  and  infinite  ;  our  personality 


52         The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

is  derived  and  finite.  God  is  not  like  us ;  but  we  are 
as  shadows  self-cast  from  God.  He  was  not  made  in 
our  image,  but  we  are  made  in  His.  Mr.  Spencer 
admits  both  nature  and  supernature.  Which  begets 
the  other?  As  the  greater  contains  the  less,  so  super- 
nature  contains  and  manifests  nature.  Therefore,  if 
God,  supposing  Him  to  be  conscious,  from  having 
given  us  consciousness,  is  not  personal  in  His  con- 
sciousness, we  are  not  personal  in  our  consciousness ; 
but  as  we  are  from  Him,  if  our  consciousness  makes 
us  personal,  why  does  not  His  consciousness  make 
Him  personal?  Is  nature  parent  or  child  ?  Did  the 
universe  begin  in  the  finite,  or  in  the  infinite  ?  If  in 
the  finite,  then  our  personality  is  at  the  angle  whose 
sides  open  out  to  the  infinite.  If  man  began  in  the 
infinite,  then  man's  personality  is  the  vanishing  point 
of  God's  personality.  It  depends  upon  whether  we 
look  into  or  out  of  the  angle,  as  to  whose  personality 
is  before  us.  The  method  of  nature,  according  to  the 
theory  of  atheistic  evolution,  has  been  from  the  im- 
personal to  the  personal ;  for  personal  man  is  here. 
In  the  future  progress  of  man,  which  evolution  makes 
inevitable,  is  our  present  human  personality  to  go 
forward  to  a  superhuman  personality  or  to  a  super- 
human impersonality?  Which  exalts  the  more?  We 
must  remember  that,  in  evolution,  "  progress  is  not 
an  accident,  but  a  necessity."  (Spencer,  Social  Sci- 
ence, p.  78.)  Mr.  Spencer  said  that  "  it  seems  some- 
what strange  that  men  should  suppose  the  highest 
worship  to  lie  in  assimilating  the  object  of  their  wor- 
ship to  themselves."  But  it  is  not  strange  that  men 
should  suppose  that  the  highest  worship  lies  in  as- 


Personality  is  Derived  from  Personality.     53 

similating  the  object  of  their  worship  to  themselves." 
The  struggle  is  to  lift  our  personality  towards  His ; 
to  get  something  exalting  from  him.  We  think  him 
perfect  in  that  which  we,  are  imperfect.  We  accept 
our  personality  as  a  profert  of  His  personality.  As 
conscious  intelligence  constitutes  us  persons,  we  as- 
cribe personality  to  Him  from  whom  these  and  all 
things  come  to  us.  Religion  worships  the  parental 
Being,  whether  personal  or  impersonal ;  but  consti- 
tuted as  we  are,  we  cannot  worship  or  feel  account- 
able to  a  mere  abstraction — an  impersonal,  blind,  un- 
intelligent Power.  We  are  accustomed  to  associate 
authority  with  personality,  and  to  look  to  this  Super- 
nal Power  as  "  touched  with  a  feeling  of  our  infirm- 
ity." Beyond  this  question  of  worship,  the  person- 
ality of  Power,  is  a  mere  idle  inquiry  to  religion. 

Has  science  more  reason  to  impersonalize  force,  in 
the  face  of  our  personal  force,  that  religion  has  to 
personalize  it?  Indeed,  science  can  neither  affirm 
its  impersonality  nor  deny  its  personality,  as  it  con- 
fesses its  entire  ignorance  of  the  whole  subject. 
Upon  this  question,  the  true  scientific  attitude  of  sci- 
ence is  ignorant  silence. 

If  human  personality  is  derived,  it  must  be,  on  the 
principle  of  like  from  like,  from  a  superhuman  person- 
ality. If  human  personality  is  not  derived  by  evolu- 
tion it  must  be  produced  by  original  creation  ;  and 
creation  implies  a  creator. 

If  human  personality  be  not  derived  from  super- 
human personality,  it  could  not  be  derived  from  su- 
perhuman impersonality  ;  for  the  greater  would  be 
from  the  less,  and  a  thing  present  from  itself  absent. 


54         The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

If  the  eternal  is  one,  and  Personality  and  imperson- 
ality are  not  two  eternal  and  different  things,  which 
is  from  the  other?  A  few  atheistic  scientists  assume 
the  impersonality,  while  the  many  theistic  scientists 
claim  to  prove  the  personality  of  the  Factor  of  all 
facts,  by  the  very  facts  themselves. 

Evolution  claims  that  the  eternal  and  universal  in- 
stability of  the  homogeneous  ever  seeking  an  impos- 
sible equilibrium,  produces  the  heterogeneous — some- 
thing unlike  itself.  How,  then,  does  it  account  for 
the  law  of  heredity,  of  like  from  like?  The  princi- 
ples are  directly  contradictory,  and  so  far  as  one  is 
true  the  other  must  be  untrue,  unless  unified  in  a  su- 
pernatural Factor.  To  give  up  the  differentiation  of 
the  heterogeneous  from  the  homogeneous,  gives  up 
the  whole  theory  of  evolution  for  one  of  creation 
where  things  originate  in  a  Power  unlike  themselves 
and  to  adhere  to  it,  gives  up  the  whole  theory  of 
heredity,  or  of  like  from  like.  Did  human  personal- 
ity come  from  superhuman  impersonality  under  the 
law  of  heterogeneity  from  homogeneity,  or  did  it  come 
from  superhuman  personality  under  the  hereditary 
law  of  like  from  like?  If  it  began  under  the  law  of 
unlikeness,  how  did  it  get  under  the  law  of  likeness? 

Now,  in  the  universe  there  is  personal  nature,  and 
there  is  impersonal  nature ;  but  one  is  not  the  other. 
Impersonal  nature  cannot  do  what  personal  nature 
does,  and  personal  nature  cannot  be  what  impersonal 
nature  is.  If,  upon  the  principle  of  unlikeness,  as  be- 
tween the  mould  and  the  bullet,  or  the  coin  and  the 
die,  personal  nature  came  from  impersonal  nature, 
then,  upon  the  same  principle  of  unlikeness,  imper- 


Evolution  by  Extrinsic  Power.  55 

sonal  nature  came  from  personal  nature.  But  if, 
upon  the  principle  of  like  from  like,  impersonal 
nature  came  from  impersonal  nature,  then,  as  said  a 
few  pages  back,  upon  the  same  principle,  personal 
nature  in  man  came  from  a  higer  personal  nature  in 
God. 

Evolutionary  changes  from  uniformity  to  multi- 
formity, in  all  things  without  life,  as  from  minerals  to 
vegetables,  are  creative,  not  genetic  ;  and  the  advance 
is  per  saltum,  by  extrinsic  power.  Heredity  alone  is 
directly  genetic,  and  indirectly  creative.  All  un- 
mixed matter,  such  as  oxygen  and  hydrogen,  is  both 
homogeneous  and  inert.  To  these  homogeneous  gases, 
some  extrinsic  power  first  gives  instability,  by  over- 
coming their  inertia ;  and  then,  by  dissipating  their 
motion,  integrates  them  into  heterogeneous  water. 
In  more  technical  phraseology,  extrinsic  power  for 
these,  and  all  other  elements  of  matter,  directly  cre- 
ates the  instability  of  the  homogeneous ;  and,  indi- 
rectly, through  the  instability  of  the  homogeneous, 
the  same  extrinsic  power  creates  the  heterogeneous. 
The  same  intrinsic  power  creatively  dissipates  motion, 
and,  through  the  dissipation  of  motion,  the  same  ex- 
trinsic power  integrates  matter.  Extrinsic  power, 
known  as  a  single  cause,  creates  a  multiplicity  of  ef- 
fects. Extrinsic  power,  out  of  incoherence  creates 
coherence  ;  and  out  of  the  infinite  creates  the  definite. 
Here  is  a  creative,  not  a  genetic  line  of  advance. 
Hence,  theistic  evolution  is  simply  a  method  of  progress, 
PER  SALTUM,  by  extrinsic  creative  pozver. 

Now,  if  the  personality  of  this  creative  power  be 
denied,  its  impersonality  will  be  assumed  ;  and  the 


56         The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

same  necessity  of  progress  that  moved  impersonal 
nature  on  to  personal  nature  in  man,  must  move  it 
on  to  a  personal  supernature  in  God.  Here  the  a 
priori  look  is  from  a  personal  man  on  to  a  personal 
God. 

The  unintelligent  impersonal  necessity  that  did  not 
know  how  to  begin,  does  not  know  how  to  stop.  If 
supernature  did  not  originate  nature,  nature  must 
originate  supernature.  In  other  words,  if  a  personal 
God  did  not  make  impersonal  nature,  impersonal 
nature  must  make  a  personal  God — there  is  a  per- 
sonal God  at  one  end  or  the  other  of  this  line  of  evo- 
lution. The  materialists  insist  upon  the  imperson- 
ality of  the  Factor  of  all  facts  ;  and  offer,  in  proof, 
two  conflicting  theories  of  nature. 

The  first  theory  claims  that  uniform  law  is  the  im- 
personal factor  of  all  facts,  like  conditions  producing 
like  results.  In  this  sense,  law  is  only  an  impersonal 
method  of  impersonal  power,  and  not  the  power  it- 
self. Method  governs  nothing  and  produces  nothing. 
But,  if  we  can  judge  as  to  what  law  is  in  nature 
without  by  the  light  of  our  own  consciousness  with- 
in, law  is  personal  Will.  This  will  may  act  with  or 
without  conditions ;  but,  in  itself,  Will  has  no  condi- 
tions. The  method  of  law  is  only  the  uniformity  of 
will,  and  its  power  is  the  diversity  of  will.  In  a 
word,  can  impersonal  law  account  for  the  fact  of 
human  personality  ? 

The  second  theory  of  an  impersonal  Factor  of  all 
facts,  including  the  fact  of  our  personality,  is  that  of 
impersonal  evolution  which  we  have  been  consider- 
ing.    Its  leading  idea  is,  that  in  the  instability  of  the 


Difference  Between  Law  and  Evolution.     57 

universe  (called  the  instability  of  the  homogeneous) 
things  are  agitated  and  changed  into  the  condition 
we  find  them  without  the  agency  of  a  personal  or 
even  a  supernatural  Factor. 

According  to  these  two  impersonal  agencies,  Law 
is  a  method  of  impersonal  repetition,  and  Evolution 
is  a  method  of  impersonal  development ;  but,  if  every- 
thing is  repeated  under  law,  then  nothing  is  devel- 
oped under  evolution  ;  and  vice  versa,  if  everything  is 
developed  under  evolution,  nothing  is  repeated  under 
law.  Both  theories  seem  to  be  true  but  contradic- 
tory. But,  evolution  proves,  as  we  have  seen,  a 
personal  not  an  impersonal  Factor. 

The  phenomena  of  the  universe  exhibits  a  fixed, 
mechanical  method,  and  a  free,  voluntary  method  — 
fixed  as  in  law,  when,  like  a  compass  describing  the 
same  circle,  like  conditions  always  producing  like 
results ;  and  free,  as  in  evolution,  when,  like  the 
Changes  in  the  kaleidoscope,  no  combinations  are 
ever  repeated.  The  apparent  contradictions  of  the 
universe  all  disappear  under  the  management  of  a 
personal  God.  Law  has  a  free  Law-giver,  and  Evo- 
lution has  a  free  Evolver. 

If  things  are  in  the  present  as  they  have  been  in 
the  past,  then,  the  conscious  (personal)  is  from  the 
conscious  (personal) ;  but,  if  things  in  the  present  are 
not  as  they  have  been  in  the  past,  and  the  conscious 
comes  from  the  unconscious — that  is,  things  present 
come  from  themselves  absent  (as  the  unconscious  is 
only  the  absence  of  the  conscious) — when  did  things 
change,  and  what  power  changed  them  ?  and  was  it 
intrinsic  or  extrinsic  ? 


58         The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

It  is  said  that  consciousness  affirms  personalty, 
but  cannot  cognize  it — think  of  it — formulate  it,  or 
make  it,  in  logical  order,  the  starting  point  of  knowl- 
edge of  anything  outside  or  above  itself.  But  con- 
sciousness is  personality.  Personality  is  consciousness 
and  nothing  more.  What  is  knowledge?  Knowl- 
edge is  of  two  kinds,  that  of  the  ego,  and  that  of  the 
non-ego.  Knowledge  of  the  ego  is  consciousness, 
and  is  sui generis — it  is  the  highest  kind  of  knowledge, 
without  either  subject  or  object.  We  do  not  agree 
with  Mansel  when  he  says  of  consciousness  ;  "  that  it 
is  only  possible  in  the  form  of  a  relation.  There 
must  be  a  subject,  or  person  conscious,  and  an  ob- 
ject, or  thing  of  which  he  is  conscious.  There  can  be 
no  consciousness  without  the  union  of  these  two 
factors ;  and,  in  that  union,  each  exists  only  as  it  is 
related  to  the  other.  The  subject  is  a  subject,  only 
so  far  as  it  is  conscious  of  an  object ;  the  object  is  an 
object,  only  so  far  as  it  is  apprehended  by  a  subject : 
and  the  destruction  of  either  is  the  destruction  of 
consciousness  itself."  (Limits  of  Thought.  Lect.  Ill, 
p.  96.)  Not  at  all.  Just  the  reverse.  There  is  in- 
formation but  no  consciousness  where  there  is  subject 
and  object.  Consciousness  is  the  knowledge  of  our- 
selves by  ourselves.  We  are  no  subject,  beause  we 
need  no  object ;  and  we  have  no  object,  because  there 
is  no  subject.  We  ourselves,  not  as  subject,  know 
ourselves,  but  not  as  object.  If  we  cannot  say  that 
the  ego  in  itself  is  absolute,  neither  can  we  say  that 
the  ego  in  itself  is  relative.  As  in  itself  the  ego  is 
not  relative,  so,  in  itself,  the  ego  can  be  neither  sub- 
ject nor  object.     There  need   be  only  ourselves  to 


Power  is  the  Unit  that  Phiralizes.  59 

know  ourselves ;  but  to  know  others,  there  must  be 
ourselves  as  subject  in  order  to  know  others  as  ob- 
jects. The  conscious  ego  does  not  annihilate  either 
subject  or  object,  because  as  to  it,  there  never  has 
been  either. 

According  to  evolution,  the  unit  that  pluralizes  is 
not  a  unit  of  matter,  nor  a  unit  of  mind,  nor  a  unit  of 
Being,  but  it  is  a  unit  of  Power.  But,  if  Power  be 
the  fons  et  origio,  it  personalizes ;  for  there  are  per- 
sons. Who  makes  One  to  be  All  —  all  matter,  all 
mind,  all  Power — or  Who  makes  All  to  be  One — one 
matter,  one  mind,  or  one  Power,  as  Hegel  taught? 
It  is  evident  that  things  are  governed ;  but  who  gov- 
erns? Nearly  all  systems  of  philosophy  discuss  only 
the  methods,  not  the  origins  by  Power.  With  these 
systems  it  is  the  having  proved,  the  What,  not  the 
who  or  the  why.  Mr.  Spencer,  with  whom  evolution 
is  only  a  process  of  power,  says,  "  The  universe  is  a 
manifestation  of  immanent  force."  Does  the  force 
manifest  its  own  matter,  or  does  matter  manifest  its 
own  force. 

When  Mr.  Spencer  says  that  all  things  are  mani- 
festations of  a  Power  that  transcends  our  knowledge, 
he  affirms  with  Hegel,  that  All  are  from  One  —  that 
this  One  is  Power — that  this  Power  transcends  our 
knowledge.  According  to  this  non-theistic  evolution, 
all  things,  of  course,  include  all  inorganic  and  or- 
ganic matter  and  forms  —  all  thoughts  and  feelings 
—  all  tendencies  and  events  —  all  experiences  and 
destinies. 

Does  he  mean  by  manifestations  that  what  is  here 
called  creation,  is  by  a  Power  ab  extra  ?  or  does  he 


60         The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

mean  that  manifestation  is  what  he  calls  Evolution, 
by  Power  ab  infra,  but  which  the  Buddhist  calls 
emanation? 

Agnostic  scientists  are  not  agreed  among  them- 
selves as  to  whether  the  manifesting  Power  is  extrin- 
sic or  intrinsic.  For  instance,  Mr.  S.  says,  ''  we  are 
obliged  to  regard  every  phenomenon  as  a  manifesta- 
tion of  some  Power  by  which  we  are  acted  upon." 
(F.  P.,  §  27.)  And  again:  "  The  tendency  to  progress 
from  homogeneity  to  heterogenity  is  not  intrinsic  but 
extrinsic."  (Pop.  Sci.,  Nov.,  1880,  p.  106.)  From 
these  statements  we  learn  that  Power  is  ab  extra. 
But  then  Mr.  Spencer  seems  to  contradict  himself 
when  he  says,  "  I  recognize  no  forces  within  the  or- 
ganism or  without  the  organism,  but  the  variously- 
conditioned  modes  of  the  universal,  immanent  force; 
and  the  whole  process  of  organic  evolution  is  every, 
where  attributed  by  me  to  the  co-operation  of  its 
variously-conditioned  modes,  internal  and  external." 
(1  Biol.,  491.)  What  then  is  the  meaning  of  his  doc- 
trine, that  all  accountable  and  natural  facts  are  proved 
to  be  in  their  ultimate  genesis  unaccountable  and 
supernatural?  Is  this  immanent  force  from  whose 
modes,  variously-conditioned,  proceeds  all  organic 
evolution,  natural  or  supernatural?  If  nature  and 
supernature  are  not  the  same,  to  which  belongs  evo- 
lution ? 

Mr.  Tyndall  says,  that  "  Science  rejects  the  outside 
builder."  (Pop.  Sci.,  Jan.,  1879,  P-  274-)  And,  yet, 
what  is  not  an  outside  builder  to  something  else? 
The  sun  is  an  outside  builder  to  all  things  ;  it  paints 
the  leaf,  it  perfumes  the  rose,  it  creates  the  wind,  it 


Force  is  Specialized  Power.  6 1 

bridles  the  planets,  it  reveals  and  quickens  and  glori- 
fies all.  All  external,  controlling  Power  is  super- 
natural to  the  nature  which  it  controls.  The  sun  is 
supernatural  to  its  planets.  That  external  Power 
which  controls  the  sun  in  nature,  is  supernatural  to 
the  sun,  and  so  on  back  ad  infinitum.  We  must  either 
deny  all  external  control  of  anything  in  nature,  or 
admit  a  Power  supernatural  to  nature,  which  con- 
trols. If  all  things  in  nature  are  the  manifestations 
of  Power,  then,  unless  Power  and  the  manifestations 
of  Power  are  one  and  the  same,  unlimited  Power 
must  be  supernatural  to  its  limited  manifestations. 

We  may  regard  Power  as  the  fountain  of  all  forces. 
Force  is  specialized  Power.  Specialized  Power  is 
named  differently  according  to  different  uses  or  mani- 
festations. One  manifestation  of  supernatural  Power 
is  called  the  force  of  gravitation — another  manifesta- 
tion is  called  the  force  of  heat — another  is  called  the 
force  of  electricity  —  another  is  called  the  force  of 
chemic  affinity.  The  unit  Power  when  pluralized  and 
as  the  latter  incomprehensibility  of  God  without 
matter  individualized  in  manifestation  is  called  Force. 

Two  incomprehensibilities  are  propounded  to  ac- 
count for  the  partially  comprehended  facts  of  nature. 
One  is  the  incomprehensibility  of  eternal  matter  with- 
out God,  and  the  other  is  the  incomprehensibility  of 
an  eternal  God  without  matter.  The  Theist  holds  that 
a  personal  God  created  matter  out  of  nothing ;  while 
the  pantheist  holds  that  an  impersonal  God  converted 
himself  into  matter — in  other  words  he  contends  that 
if  there  is  a  God,  there  is  no  matter,  and  if  there  is 
matter,  there  is  no  God.     Which  is  the  greater  in- 


62         The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

comprehensibility  ?  We  must  stand  by  facts  as  we 
ascertain  them. 

Unintelligent,  impersonal  evolution  is  like  a  blind 
painter,  working  upon  creations  he  cannot  see,  or  like 
an  insane  logician  wandering  after  reasons  he  does 
not  comprehend.  Such  evolution  is  impossible.  We 
cannot  see  that  which  does  not  exist.  If  we  see  rea- 
son in  nature  there  must  be  reason  in  nature.  If  we 
see  a  plan,  then  there  is  a  plan.  Nature  without  a 
plan  is  more  incomprehensible  than  nature  with  a 
plan.  We  cannot  deny  what  we  see.  We  cannot 
deny  what  we  prove ;  we  cannot  prove  that  which 
does  not  exist.  Reason  cannot  deny  the  reason  that 
reason  sees.  If  mind  is  an  effect,  it  is  the  effect  of 
some  greater  Mind  or  cause.  One  great  cause  differ- 
entiates into  many  minor  effects.  The  many  parts 
imply  the  one  whole — Division  implies  unity.  The 
special  derivation  implies  an  underived  generality. 
One  Power  makes  many  manifestations;  such  as  the 
power  to  live,  the  power  to  will,  the  power  to  think, 
the  power  to  be  conscious,  or,  which  is  the  same 
thing,  the  power  to  be  personal.  We  repeat,  if  there 
is  reason  or  intelligence  in  nature,  then  unintelligent 
evolution  is  impossible.  Unintelligent  evolution  is  a 
blind  process,  and  not  an  intelligent  method.  What- 
ever it  is,  it  is  an  eternal  necessity  in  which  there  is 
no  creation  because  everything  is  eternal,  and  noth- 
ing is  new. 

Where  we  find  anything,  we  find  some  mystery  of 
Power,  which,  in  itself,  the  thing  is  not — a  something 
of  the  supernatural,  for  which,  supernature  personal- 
ized, the  word  God  is  the  symbol.     Religion  simply 


Evil  is  in  Hitman  Will.  63 


adores  the  Personal  Presence  of  whatever  is  admit- 
ted to  be  at  the  background  of  the  universe,  whether 
it  be  called  law,  cause,  force  or  being.  And  a  per- 
sonal omnipresence  is  no  more  incomprehensible  than 
an  impersonal  omnipresence.  Nature  is  the  known 
method  of  self-revealed  Supernatural  Power.  To 
deny  the  Power  is  to  deny  the  method. 

Some  deny  that  there  is  any  Supernatural  Person 
or  personal  God,  because  there  is  evil  in  the  world. 
But  whether  Supernature  is  personal  or  impersonal, 
evil  is  not  its  work ;  for  nothing  that  is  supernatural 
can  be  evil.  Some  supernatural  Power  commands 
man  to  do  or  not  to  do  certain  things,  and  urges 
motives  for  the  one  and  against  the  other.  The  sov- 
ereignty of  God  (using  that  term  as  the  symbol  of  a 
supernatural  person)  includes  man's  freedom ;  or 
rather  God  as  a  sovereign  act,  made  man  free.  As 
evil,  in  the  sense  of  sin  is  the  act  of  will,  so  individ- 
ual evil  is  the  act  of  individual  will.  Human  evil  be- 
gan, continues  and  ends  with  the  human  will.  When 
the  human  will  shall  fully  obey  the  superhuman  will, 
all  evil  will  cease.  As  there  can  be  no  science  of 
Being  (God),  yet  there  is  a  science  of  the  method  of 
God  in  matter.  The  difference  between  science  and 
religion  is,  that  science  is  limited  to  the  part,  and  re- 
ligion extends  to  the  conceivable  whole. 

If  we  have  reached,  logically,  the  proof  of  a  super- 
natural Person  whom  we  call  God,  as  a  verbal  sym- 
bol of  Power,  is  it  illogical  to  affirm  that  God,  as  un- 
embodied  power,  may  be,  if  He  so  please,  the  God 
of  embodied,  or  Incarnate  Goodness,  whom  we  call 
Christ?     If  God  is  manifested  Power  in  his  imper- 


64         The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

sonal  Works,  why  should  He  not  be  manifest  Love, 
in  His  Personal  Son  ?  Indeed,  the  one  is  no  more 
incomprehensible  than  the  other. 

7.  The  supernatural  Power  is  one  Power.  The  man- 
ifesting Power  is  one — monistic  ;  not  two — dualistic  ; 
nor  many — pluralistic.  There  can  be  no  quality  or 
plurality  of  Time,  Space,  Power,  or  eternal  duration. 
We  have  said  that  supernatural  evolution  is  infinite 
Power  manifesting  a  finite  Method  ;  but  the  Power 
and  a  Method  are  relatively  one  as  the  substance  and 
the  shadow  are  one.  God  is  all,  or  God  creates  all. 
The  Power  to  be  a  thing  is  the  power  to  create  it. 
Of  the  two  incomprehensibilities,  it  is  more  unthink- 
able that  God  should  be  a  bird,  a  bug  or  a  stone,  than 
that  he  should  create  them.  He  can  be  that  which 
He  does  not  choose  to  create,  and  He  can  create  that 
which  he  does  not  choose  to  be.  The  secret  of 
which,  is  with  Him. 

As  we  understand  the  theory  of  agnostic  evolution, 
all  things  are  eternally  evolved  from  underived  neces- 
sary unity,  or  from  underived  necessary  plurality. 
But  nothing  could  be  evolved  from  underived  plural- 
ity, for  plurality  itself  was  evolved  from  the  unde- 
rived unity  ;  therefore  underived  unity  excludes  unde- 
rived plurality. 

8.  Supernataral  Power  is  one  Being.  Herbert  Spen- 
cer says,  "  The  axiomatic  truths  of  physical  science, 
unavoidably  postulate  Absolute  Being  as  their  com- 
mon basis.  *  *  *  We  cannot  construct  a  theory 
of  internal  phenomena  without  postulating  Absolute 
Being;  and  unless  we  postulate  Absolute  Being,  or 
Being  which  persists,  we  cannot  construct  a  theory 


Comte  s  Religion  of  Humanity.  65 

of  external  phenomena."  (F.  P.  ch.  vi,  sec.  60,  edi- 
tion of  1875.) 

"  Our  knowledge  of  noumenal  existence,"  says  Her- 
bert Spencer,  Prin.  Psy.,  "  has  a  certainty  which  our 
knowledge  of  phenomenal  existence  cannot  ap- 
proach."    (See  Cazelles,  31.) 

August  Comte,  near  the  beginning  of  this  century, 
got  up  a  Religion  of  Humanity.  George  Lewes,  his 
biographer,  at  the  conclusion  of  his  book  says  :  "  In- 
disposed as  I  am  to  occupy  any  of  the  few  remaining 
pages  with  criticism,  I  cannot  forbear  pointing  out 
one  immense  omission.  It  makes  religion  purely 
and  simply  what  has  hitherto  been  designated  morals. 
In  thus  limiting  religion  to  the  relations  in  which  we 
stand  towards  one  another,  and  towards  humanity, 
Comte  leaves  an  important  element  aside ;  for,  even 
upon  his  own  showing,  humanity  can  only  be  the 
Supreme  Being  of  our  world — it  cannot  be  the  Su- 
preme being  of  the  universe.  To  limit  the  universe 
to  our  planet  is  to  take  a  rustic,  untraveled  view  of 
this  great  subject.  If  in  this,  our  terrestrial  sojourn, 
all  we  can  distinctly  know  must  be  limited  to  the 
sphere  of  our  planet ;  nevertheless,  even  here,  we, 
standing  on  this  ball  of  earth  and  looking  into  the 
infinitude  of  which  we  know  it  to  be  but  an  atom, 
must  irresistibly  feel  and  know  that  the  humanity 
worshiped  here  cannot  extend  its  dominion  there.  I 
say,  therefore,  that  supposing  our  relations  towards 
humanity  may  one  day  be  systematized  into  a  distinct 
cultus,  and  made  a  religion ;  and  supposing,  further, 
our  whole  practical  priesthood  be  limited  to  it,  there 
must  still  remain  for  us,  outlying  this  terrestrial 
5 


66         The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

sphere,  the  other  sphere  named  infinite ;  into  which 
our  eager  and  aspiring  thoughts  will  wander,  carry- 
ing with  them,  as  ever,  the  obedient  emotions  of  love 
and  awe ;  so  that  beside  the  religion  of  humanity, 
there  must  be  a  religion  of  the  universe ;  besides  the 
conception  of  humanity  we  need  the  conception  of  a 
God,  as  the  infinite  of  life  ;  from  whom  the  universe 
proceeds,  not  in  alien  indifference,  not  in  estranged 
subjection,  but  in  the  fullness  of  abounding  power,  as 
the  incarnation  of  resistless  activity." 

And  now,  having  proved  by  the  facts  of  science, 
as  we  claim,  that  there  is  a  supernatural  Factor  for 
all  natural  facts — that  such  supernatural  Factor  is 
not  only  a  Power  but  a  Being — not  only  a  Being  but 
a  Person,  we  claim  that  such  supernatural  Power- 
Being —  Person,  is  what  we  mean  by  the  word  God, 
or  the  Good  One. 

A  hole  in  the  ocean  fills  up  as  fast  as  we  make  it. 
The  stone  that  Sisyphus  rolled  up  the  hill,  ever  rolled 
back  upon  him.  The  incomprehensible  ever  increases 
with  the  increased  comprehension  of  the  incompre- 
hensible. As  the  incomprehensible  becomes  less  the 
comprehensible  becomes  just  so  much  greater.  What 
we  lose  on  one  side  we  gain  on  the  other.  Has  the 
atheist  no  other  hope  of  annihilating  God,  than  that 
of  his  boast  of  comprehending  the  incomprehensible? 
After  comprehending  all  that  we  can,  that  which  re- 
mains incomprehensible  will  be  enough  for  our  God. 
When  we  have  apprehended  that  the  solar  system  is 
held  together  by  what  is  called  gravitation,  still  we 
have  not  comprehended  incomprehensible  gravita- 
tion.    Though  we  may  comprehend  a  few  facts,  we 


The  Finite  Proves  the  Infinite.  67 

are  utterly  unable  to  comprehend  a  single  cause. 
The  wisdom  of  man  is  foolishness  to  God.  The 
higher  we  rise,  the  wider  is  the  view.  As  we  ad- 
vance, the  horizon  before  us  recedes,  and  behind  us 
it  follows.  The  God  of  a  savage  is  a  Fetish  ;  the 
God  of  an  Isaiah,  or  a  Newton,  is  an  Infinite  Being. 
Hereafter  we  shall  use,  ad  libitum  ,  the  word  God, 
interchangeably  with  the  word  Power,  as  a  verbal 
symbol  of  the  supernatural.  Let  us  now  study  its 
ways  or  methods  of  manifestation. 

From  supernature,  nature  came  ; 
The  two  are  one,  or  both  the  same. 
For  each  is  part  of  each  the  whole, 
As  each  is  all  of  each  the  soul. 
Yet  bird  and  man  and  jewelled  sod 
Are  God-made  things  that  are  not  God. 
The  star  is  not  the  leafy  tree, 
Nor  e'er  can  each  the  other  be. 
Still  earth  and  sky  and  central  sun, 
Though  all  from  God,  in  God  are  one. 
Each  sound  and  form,  and  throbbing  star, 
Of  thought  eternal,  fragments  are. 
The  finite  proves  the  Infinite, 
As  night  reveals  the  hidden  light. 


LECTURE  II. 


METHODS  OF  SUPERNATURAL 
POWER. 

There  is  further  proof  of  supernatural  Power  in 
the  methods  of  its  manifestation.  What  Power  does 
proves  what  Power  is ;  even  as  the  tree  is  known 
by  its  fruits.  Power  may  manifest  itself  directly  in 
things  without  life,  and  indirectly  in  things  with  life. 
Power  may  manifest  itself  uniformly  as  in  what  is 
called  natural  law,  or  multiformly,  as  in  creation  and 
generation.  Power  begins  or  creates  things,  con- 
tinues or  generates  things,  exchanges  or  correlates 
things.  Sometimes  the  manifestation  or  way  of 
Power  is  a  method,  sometimes  it  is  a  process  and 
sometimes  it  is  neither  a  method  nor  a  process. 
Method  is  a  plan  or  uniform  habit  of  Power.  As 
human  Power  is  human  Will,  so  we  may  conclude 
that  superhuman  Power  is  superhuman  Will.  Thus 
we  say  that  a  plan,  a  way,  a  habit,  of  Power,  is  a 
plan,  a  way,  a  habit,  of  Will — of  one  Will,  whatever 
its  methods.  Will,  human  or  superhuman,  or  subhu- 
man, is  behind  everything  done  in  the  universe. 
Where  superhuman  will  stops,  the  human  or  subhu- 
man goes  on. 


Method  as  Related  to  Miracles.  69 

1.  Method  as  related  to  Miracles.  There  are,  how- 
ever, special  manifestations  of  Will  Power  that  ex- 
hibit no  method,  such  as  miracles  and  providence. 
Miracles  are  sporadic  acts  of  Power.  After  God's 
Will  became  known  as  matter,  as  cause,  as  force,  as 
life,  as  providence,  as  law,  as  command,  when  it  did 
some  special  thing,  it  was  known  as  a  miracle.  A 
miracle  is  a  fact.  The  first  of  everything  was  a  mir- 
acle— the  first  atom,  the  first  seed,  the  first  insect. 
God  is  the  worker  of  superhuman  miracles  as  man  is 
of  human  miracles.  Nature  is  a  miracle  of  superna- 
ture. 

A  superhuman  miracle  is  a  fact,  as  the  creation  of 
the  world,  and  all  that  is  in  it ;  and  a  human  miracle 
is  a  fact,  as  every  act  of  the  human  Will.  We  say 
this,  because  every  act  is  a  miracle  which  is  not  under 
law,  and  no  Will,  human  or  superhuman,  is  under 
law.  All  Will  is  a  law  unto  itself.  Even  superhu- 
man Will  may  speak  to,  but  not  coerce  human  Will, 
without  destroying  it.  There  is  everywhere,  and  in 
everything,  nothing  but  a  miracle.  Law  is  the  mir- 
acle of  miracles.  The  first  drop  of  water  produced 
was  a  miracle ;  nor  did  it  cease  to  be  a  miracle  when 
the  second  was  produced. 

All  original  and  unrepeated  acts  are  miracles ;  all 
acts  are  original  and  unrepeated  :  therefore  all  acts 
are  miracles.  To  repeat  is  to  do  the  same  thing ; 
but  while  similar  things  are  done,  the  same  thing  can 
not  be  done  twice.  If  to  overcome  law  is  a  miracle, 
then  any  one  may  perform  a  miracle.  When  it  is 
said  that  the  universe  is  governed  by  law,  of  course 
it  is  meant  that  every  atom,  motion,  and  change  of 


jo        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

every  kind,  is  governed  by  law.  Raise  your  hand 
and  let  it  fall  again  to  the  side !  So.  When  your 
hand,  which  hung  at  your  side  under  the  law  of 
gravitation,  was  raised  by  your  Will,  was  it  raised 
by  law  or  not  ?  If  it  was  raised  by  your  Will  in  spite 
of  law,  your  Will  overcame  the  law,  and  is  a  miracle. 
If  Will  is  not  law,  then  it  is  stronger  than  law,  and 
law  does  not  govern  the  universe,  for  it  does  govern 
Will.  That  governs  the  universe,  as  we  have  said, 
which  governs  natural  law.  In  the  case  before  us, 
Will  governs  law,  and  therefore  Will  governs  the 
universe — indeed,  Will  is  law.  If  Will  governs  the 
universe,  then  there  may  be  answers  to  prayer,  special 
providences,  and  miracles,  or  anything  and  every- 
thing that  Supreme  Will  may  choose  to  do. 

But  right  here  is  a  difficulty,  not  in  the  sufficiency 
of  proof,  but  in  the  prejudice,  or  prepossession  of  the 
mind,  to  which  it  is  submitted.  Everything  is  doubt- 
ful to  a  doubting  mind.  All  proof,  whether  of  one 
kind  or  another,  must  be  submitted  to  minds  of  pre- 
conceived notions  of  some  sort — minds  with  a  theistic 
or  an  atheistic  bias — and  these  proofs  are  sufficient 
or  insufficient,  according  to  the  bias.  To  an  atheist, 
miracles  are  impossible,  because  he  believes  in  no 
God  to  work  them.  In  denying  a  God,  he  denies  all 
a  God  can  do.  In  other  words,  admitting  a  God,  we 
can  account  for  all  things  ;  in  denying  a  God,  we  can 
account  for  nothing. 

A  supernatural  Being  can  do  supernatural  things. 
But  to  believe  in  a  truth,  we  must  be  in  sympathy  with 
it ;  or  at  least  not  in  antipathy  to  it.  As  before  said, 
all  is  doubtful  to  a  doubting  mind.     While  preposses- 


No  Miracles  to  God.  y  i 

sion  is  not  proof,  prejudice  is  not  refutation.  The 
mind  without  a  God,  e.  g.,  denying-  a  God,  sees  a 
universe  without  a  God.  But  a  mind  having  God 
within,  e.  g.,  in  its  faith,  sees  all  things  live,  move, 
and  have  their  being  in  God.  Law,  force,  miracle 
and  cause  are  different  names  for  Will.  As  we 
widen  the  field  of  law,  we  multiply  the  number  of 
miracles  ;  for  miracles  are  not  the  exception  to  law, 
but  law  is  the  uniformity  or  system  of  miracles.  Law, 
as  the  assumed  invariability  of  will,  is  essentially  and 
possibly,  variable.  Law-phenomena  and  miracle-phe- 
nomena, are  both  will-phenomena.  A  equals  X  plus 
Y.  In  other  words,  law  and  miracle,  cause  and 
force,  make  the  sum  of  will ;  but  to  this  will,  there  is 
no  lazv  and  no  miracle.  One  volition  is  as  natural  as 
another ;  is  as  much  a  law  as  another ;  and  is  as  much 
a  miracle  as  another.  If  asked  what  is  a  miracle,  I 
ask,  what  is  law?  Miracles  are  defined  when  law  is 
explained  ;  when  law  is  explained,  miracles  are 
proved.  Miracles  have  hitherto  been  put  upon  the 
defensive ;  but  the  time  has  come,  for  the  more  phi- 
losophical understanding  of  truth,  to  put  law  upon 
explanation.  That  is  miracle  in  nature  which  is 
alone  in  nature.  Each  of  the  three  Kingdoms,  min- 
eral, animal,  vegetable,  is  alone  in  the  universe ;  and 
each  to  every  other  Kingdom,  is  a  Wonder — a  Mir- 
acle. Law  is  the  greatest  miracle  of  God.  To  say 
that  law  is  in  the  fact  of  like  results  from  like  condi- 
tions, is  to  state  merely  a  fact,  not  to  give  a  principle  ; 
a  result,  not  an  effect ;  a  method,  not  a  power;  a  se- 
quence, not  a  consequence.  According  to  some, 
notion  of  the  change  of  condition  changes  the  law. 


72        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

Miracles  may  work  by  conditions  as  well  as  law.  In 
law  the  conditions  are  repeated  ;  in  miracles  they  are 
not  repeated.  Put  the  possibility  of  miracles  in  the 
change  of  conditions,  if  that  will  help  the  matter. 
Give  to  law  its  conditions,  and  to  a  miracle  its  con- 
ditions.    Nothing  is  impossible  with  God. 

It  is  said  "  the  elevation  of  a  body  in  the  air  by  the 
force  of  the  arm,  is  a  counteraction  of  the  law  of 
gravitation,  but  it  is  a  counteraction  of  it  by  another 
law  as  natural  as  the  law  of  gravity.  The  fact, 
therefore,  is  in  conformity  with  the  laws  of  nature. 
But  if  the  same  body  is  raised  in  the  air  without  any 
application  of  known  force,  it  is  not  a  fact  in  con- 
formity with  natural  law."  But  when  the  arm  raises 
a  stone  in  the  air,  it  is  not  the  arm,  but  the  will  of  the 
man  that  raises  it ;  and  the  will  is  a  known  force.  Is 
not  that  will  a  netural  law — all  the  natural  law  there 
is?  If  so,  may  not  the  will  of  another  raise  it?  If  a 
will  can  raise  it,  what  is  it  that  pulls  it  down,  but  the 
will  of  some  other  ?  If  some  other  will  pulls  it  down, 
may  not  the  will  of  that  other  raise  it  up?  When  a 
man  raises  a  stone  in  the  air,  his  will  overcomes  the 
will  of  some  invisible  person  that  pulls  it  down.  If 
the  will  of  a  finite  person  raises,  may  not  the  will  of 
an  infinite  person  pull  down  ?  God's  will  manifests 
itself  twice  as  much  in  two  ounces  as  it  does  in  one. 

When  science  explains  a  law,  theology  will  explain 
miracles.  To  account  for  law  is  to  account  for  mir- 
acles. Law  is  essentially  what  miracles  are,  and 
nothing  more ;  and  miracles  are  essentially  what  law 
is,  and  nothing  less.  The  mistake  has  been  in  putting 
miracles  upon   proof,  instead   of   putting  law  upon 


Method  and  Providence.  jt, 


explanation.  Miracles  are  not  the  exception  to  law  ; 
but  law  is  the  uniformity  of  the  miraculous  Power. 
Law  is  the  totality  of  miracles.  But  law  and  mir- 
acles are  essentially  the  acts  of  one  and  the  same 
Absolute  Will.  The  will  of  God  has  general  mani- 
festations called  laws,  special  manifestations  called 
miracles.  But  there  was  a  miracle  before  there  was 
law,  just  as  the  end  of  a  line  is  before  its  prolonga- 
tion. The  first  thing  in  the  univrerse  was  a.miracle — 
a  something  done  antecedent  to  all  conditions — an 
act  of  Absolute  Will. 

An  uniform  repetition  of  those  miracles  or  acts  of 
the  will,  are  the  laws  of  nature.  But  the  special  was 
before  the  general — indeed  the  general  was  only 
many  specials  in  succession.  Nature  is  but  the  visi- 
ble shapes  of  will — some  special  as  in  miracles,  and 
some  general  and  uniform,  as  in  what  are  called  laws. 
Both  miracle  and  law  mean  nature,  and  nature  means 
Absolute  Will.  Therefore,  the  explanation  of  miracle 
is  identical  with  the  explanation  of  law.  Miracle 
does  not  suspend,  violate  or  withdraw  itself  as  an 
exception  to  the  law-order  of  nature ;  for  law  being 
the  uniform  willing,  or  volition  of  the  Absolute  Will, 
cannot  suspend,  violate,  or  except  itself.  One  act  of 
will  does  not  suspend  another  act  of  will ;  nor  does 
one  act  of  will  violate  another  act  of  will ;  nor  is  one 
act  of  will  an  exception  to  other  acts  of  the  same 
will.  Will  is  will,  and  that  is  all  there  is  about  it. 
When  law  is  accounted  for  essentially,  then  miracles 
are  accounted  for  rationally. 

2.  Method  as  related  to  providence.  The  universe  is 
under  the  control  of  Will,  direct  or  indirect,  or  under 


74        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

necessity.  If  all  things  are  under  the  control  of  Will, 
nothing  is  necessary,  or  if  under  necessity  nothing  is 
free,  and  nothing  can  be  right  or  wrong.  If  conduct 
can  be  morally  right  or  wrong,  Supreme  Will  con- 
trols all,  and  providence  is  both  possible  and  prob- 
able. So  that  the  question  is  not,  can  there  be  a 
providence?  but,  as  Supreme  Will  controls  all,  the 
question  is,  what  is  not  a  providence?  Here  too  we 
see  the  possibility  of  answer  to  prayer.  If  unlimited 
Power  is  unlimited  Will,  prayer  may  be  answered, 
and  no  law  broken  ;  for  law  is  will,  as  we  now  pro- 
ceed to  show. 

3.  Method  as  related  to  Laze.  In  what  is  called 
natural  law,  supernatural  Will  Power  manifests  uni- 
formity rather  than  method.  Law  is  Will ;  Will  is 
one  as  the  sun,  law  many  as  the  rays.  As  every  ray 
is  all  sun,  so  every  law  is  all  Will.  In  other  words, 
as  the  sun  and  its  rays,  so  is  Will  and  laws.  Natural 
law  is  supernatural  Will,  uniform  as  we  think  law  to 
be.  Will  is  not  only  Power — personal  power — but 
Will  is  law-power. 

The  law  of  human,  individual  and  collective, 
conduct  is  superhuman  Will,  stereotyped  in  the  inev- 
itable state  of  society.  That  is  natural  law  which  is 
best  under  natural  circumstances.  Circumstances 
over  which  we  do  not  have  control  reveal  the  law 
of  conduct  over  which  we  do  have  control. 

If  the  universe  is  governed  by  law,  it  is  governed 
by  Will ;  for,  as  said  before,  if  Will  is  not  law,  then 
the  motion  of  my  hand  which  is  governed  by  my 
Will,  is  not  governed  by  law,  and  so  the  whole  uni- 
verse, of  which  my  hand  is  a  part,  is  not  governed  by 


Law  is  Will.  75 


law.  So  far  as  law  is  uniform,  it  is  the  uniformity  of 
Will.  Supreme  Will  prescribes  its  own  supreme 
conditions,  supreme  operations,  and  supreme  aims. 
Law  is  Will,  uniform  as  we  see  it.  Natural  law,  as 
contrasted  with  civil  law,  is  supernatural  Will,  uni- 
form in  natural  order. 

But  law  creates  nothing,  therefore  if  law  is  only  a 
fact,  it  governs  nothing ;  for  fact  belongs  to  method 
and  not  to  power ;  and  while  power  governs  every- 
thing, method  governs  nothing.  What  is  method  ? 
Method  is  a  way  of  power,  and  may  be  uniform  or 
multiform.  As  in  initial  creation  of  the  inorganic,  in 
progressive  creation  called  evolution,  and  in  special 
creation  called  miracles,  omnipresent  Will  observes 
a  self-prescribed  method  of  special  diversity  in  a 
general  system  of  uniformity,  doing  different,  origi- 
nal, creative  things,  with  or  without  conditions ;  so 
in  Law,  the  same  omnipresent  Will  observes  a  self- 
prescribed  method  of  general  uniformity  in  special 
diversity  ;  doing,  uniform  things  under  uniform  con- 
ditions, governing,  under  a  method  of  uniformity,  a 
universe  it  had  created  by  its  power,  under  a  method 
of  diversity.  The  scientific  notion  of  law  is  in  its  ap- 
parent uniformity.  I  say  its  apparent  uniformity,  be- 
cause, as  Prof.  Jevons  says,  "  Law  is  not  inconsist- 
ent with  extreme  diversity." 

According  to  Mill,  "  the  expression  '  law  of  nature,' 
means  nothing  but  the  uniformities  which  exist  among 
natural  phenomena." 

The  essence  of  law  is  in  the  will  behind  the  uni- 
formity. Even  Mr.  Mill  admits  that  "the  expression 
'  law  of  nature,'  is  generally  used  by  scientific  men 


j6         The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

as  a  sort  of  tacit  reference  to  the  original  sense  of  the 
word  taw,  the  expression  of  the  will  of  a  superior ; 
the  superior,  in  this  instance,  being  the  Ruler  of  the 
Universe."  If  law  is  will,  then  uniformity  of  law 
is  but  a  method  or  uniformity  of  will.  Laws  are  as 
uniform  as  the  purpose  of  the  law-giver.  The  pur- 
poses of  law,  and  the  purposes  of  even  miracles,  are 
purposes  of  one  and  the  same  will ;  and  therefore,  as 
actions  of  the  will,  there  can  be  nothing  in  law  so 
fixed  that  a  miracle  would  conflict  with  it,  One  voli- 
tion of  the  will  cannot  conflict  with  another  volition 
of  the  same  will.     Difference  is  not  conflict. 

It  has  been  said  that  force  cannot  exist  apart  from 
matter ;  and  that  matter  exists  only  in  connection 
with  force.  As  to  saying  that  matter  exists  only  in 
connection  with  force,  matter  becomes  less  and  less 
material  as  you  reach  the  immaterial  force  with  which 
it  is  instinct.  The  constant  tendency  of  science  is  to 
idealize  or  immaterialize  matter.  Omnipresent  force 
is  omnipresent  will.  Will  is  manifested  as  gravitation, 
and  is  gravitation  ;  it  is  manifested  as  chemical  affin- 
ity, and  is  chemical  affinity  ;  it  is  manifested  in  the  in- 
terchange of  all  the  energies  of  nature,  and  is  those 
energies.  God's  will  as  heat  becomes  God's  will  as 
electricity  ;  and  God's  will  as  electricity  becomes 
God's  will  as  heat,  and  God  is  all  in  all.  God's  will  is 
uniform  in  God's  uniform  purpose.  Science  studies 
this  uniformity  in  matter,  and  calls  it  law,  whereas  it 
is  only  a  method.  God  is  omnipresent  as  will,  as  force, 
as  providence.  Usual  acts  of  will  are  called  laws ; 
unusual  acts  are  called  miracles.  But  to  Him,  the 
volitions  of  his  will  are  not  known  as  usual  or  unusu- 


Creation  Never  Stops.  yy 

al ;  He  neither  looks  forward  nor  backward  ;  all  is  one 
eternal  now.  To  Him  all  present  acts  or  phenomena 
are  alike  creative.  As  there  is  no  past  time  to  God, 
there  is  no  past  creation  to  Him.  Creation  is  per- 
petual. To  continue  is  to  create — continuation  is  only 
prolonged  creation.  A  growing-  tree  is  a  growing 
creation  ;  every  second,  is  a  new  creation.  That  which 
seems  to  come  to  us  by  the  uniformity  of  law,  is  an 
instantaneous  creation  as  God's  will.  He  knows  no 
law  or  creation  apart  from  His  will. 

As  we  have  said,  God  created  some  things  without 
individual  wills,  and  some  things  with  individual 
wills.  To  things  without  wills  of  their  own,  as  min- 
erals and  vegetables,  He  addressed  no  command,  as 
they  had  neither  intelligence  nor  power  to  obey  or 
disobey  them.  He  imposed  upon  them,  consequently, 
no  moral  accountability,  but  He,  Himself,  dwelt  in 
them  as  their  will.  What  we  call  the  mechanical 
forces  of  gravitation,  heat,  electricity,  and  the  forces 
of  chemical  affinity,  and  the  vital  force  of  germination 
and  growth,  are  but  names  we  give  to  God  at  work. 
They  are  not  so  much  manifestations  of  His  will,  as 
they  are  His  will  itself.  Where  uniformity  is  the 
uniformity  of  Absolute  Will — uniformity  is  a  fact  or 
method,  but  not  an  essence. 

"  Theological  philosophy  supposes  everything  to  be 
governed  by  will,  and  that  phenomena  are,  therefore, 
variable,  at  least  virtually.  The  positive  philosophy, 
on  the  contrary,  conceive  them  to  be  subject  to  inva- 
riable laws,  which  permit  us  to  predict  with  absolute 
precision."  Between  these  two  accounts  of  things, 
there  is  said  to  be  an  utter  incompatibility.     Suppose 


jS>        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

we  admit  the  existence  of  these  uniform  laws,  whose 
operations  we  may  predict  with  absolute  precision,  so 
far  as  they  portend  to  matter.  Does  that  forbid  them 
to  be  will — uniform  will?  May  not  this  uniformity 
be  self-prescribed  by  will?  Uniformity  is  not  the 
essence  of  law,  but  its  method.  Positive  philosophy 
does  not  investigate  that  essence.  It  cannot  deny 
that  uniform  laws  may  be  uniform  will.  It  says  that 
it  knows  not  what  it  is  that  is  uniform  ;  only  that 
something  is  uniform  ;  whether  it  is  will,  or  whatever 
it  may  be.  Positive  philosophy  confines  its  researches 
to  the  fact,  and  does  not  investigate  the  cause  of  uni- 
formity. Facts  belong  to  methods,  not  powers.  But 
may  not  will  in  nature  choose  to  be  uniform  (in  nature, 
at  least)  to  us?  There  are  two  facts  in  nature — unin- 
telligent, unconscious,  impersonal  matter,  and  intelli- 
gent, conscious,  personal  being.  Science  is  impa- 
tient that  religion  should  teach  that  nature  rests  upon 
supernature  — the  objective  upon  the  subjective — im- 
personal facts  upon  a  personal  Factor. 

Nature  is  multiformity  in  uniformity.  Distance 
blends  the  uneven  into  the  even,  the  variable  into  the 
invariable;  and  that  which  is  invariable  to  us,  is 
variable  to  Him,  and  the  reverse.  Science  must 
study  what  it  calls  the  variable,  as  in  the  wills  of  all 
animal  natures,  or  confess  its  impotence  as  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  uppermost  lines  of  nature.  When  we 
pass  from  matter  to  human  conduct,  human  will  is 
the  most  obtrusive  of  all  facts  in  human  nature.  If 
supernatural  will  be  too  variable  to  be  studied  by 
science,  so,  a  fortiori,  must  be  the  will  of  all  below 
the   supernatural.     Is   man   without  law  because  he 


Will  as  Laiv  is  Invariable.  79 

has  a  will?  Will  is  variable  or  invariable,  as  it 
chooses  to  be.  As  said  before,  supreme  will  is  inva- 
riable, when  it  has  an  invariable  purpose ;  though 
with  the  Almighty,  there  "  is  no  variableness,  neither 
shadow  of  turning."  "  I  am  the  Lord,  I  change  not; 
therefore  ye  sons  of  Jacob  are  not  consumed."  Sci- 
ence cannot  prove  that  variableness  is  more  a  char- 
acteristic of  will  than  invariableness.  It  is  claimed 
that  the  laws  of  nature  may  be  scientifically  ob- 
served and  ascertained  because  of  their  invariability  ; 
but  that  does  not  prove  that  they  are  not  acts  of  will, 
unless  it  can  be  proved  that  acts  of  will  are  invariably 
variable,  which  is  absurd.  The  power  to  be  variable 
is  one  thing,  and  the  exercise  of  it  another.  The 
existence  of  will  cannot  be  denied.  If  nature  can  be 
invariable  without  intelligent  will,  as  some  contend, 
it  is  likely  to  be  more  variable  with  the  intelligent 
will,  for  which  is  here  contended  ?  The  simple  dif- 
ference is  this  ;  some  see  that  what  they  call  the  laws 
of  nature  are  invariable,  but  neither  know  nor  inquire 
why  they  are  so.  Others  see  the  laws  of  nature  to 
be  equally  invariable,  and  believe  them  to  be  the 
energies  of  the  possibly  variable  will  of  God.  To 
these  they  have  a  personal  origin  ;  to  those  others  an 
impersonal  one.  Some  study  and  trust  them  as  the 
invariable  facts  of  an  impersonal  nature  ;  others  study 
and  reverence  them  as  the  invariable  decisions  of  a 
Personal  God.  They  attribute  them  to  a  person,  be- 
cause they  are  acts  like  those  of  a  person.  They  are 
as  invariable  to  theology,  as  they  are  to  science. 
What  is  called  unchangeable  nature,  is  but  unchanged 
will.     But   let   us  bear  in    mind,  that  unchangeable 


So        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

will  need  not  always  do  the  same  thing.  An  un- 
changeable will  may  do  different  and  progressive 
things,  as  in  all  evolution.  It  may  do  similar  things, 
under  what  we  may  call  laws,  and  it  may  do  many  dis- 
similar things  we  may  call  miracles.  But  as  acts  of 
will,  each  is  independent,  and  in  no  sense  violative  of 
other  acts  of  will.  The  directing  and  effective  energy 
of  the  universe,  which  is  a  great  fact  in  God,  is  inces- 
santly willing  different  things.  If  the  theory  of  evolu- 
tion be  valid  as  a  process  or  method  of  God's  will,  then,  of 
course,  that  will  is  invariably  variable.  The  invariable 
or  uniform  is  stationary  ;  the  variable  is  the  progres- 
sive. The  incessant  development  of  the  homogene- 
ous into  the  heterogeneous,  of  species  into  varieties, 
has  a  persistent  method  of  will  ever  varying  its  work. 
No  miracle  is  more  a  departure  from  uniformity  than 
the  ever  changing  variations  of  species  and  indi- 
viduals. These  are,  in  fact,  miracles,  if  law  is  uni- 
form. In  a  word,  evolution  is  a  process  of  miracles.  In 
evolution,  all  is  instability,  change,  creative,  and  mi- 
raculous. If  law  is  a  method  of  stability  and  not  in 
the  power  of  will,  then  there  is  no  law,  if  evolution 
be  true  ;  for,  as  seen  in  inorganic  evolution,  all  is  in- 
stability, and  per  salt?un.  Development  is  variation. 
In  the  law  theory,  the  conditions  and  results  are 
ever  alike ;  in  the  evolution  theory,  conditions  and 
results  are  ever  unlike.  In  law,  nature  never  extends, 
but  always  repeats ;  in  evolution,  nature  never  re- 
peats, but  always  progresses.  One  theory,  as  an 
exclusive  theory,  contradicts  the  other.  If  one  is 
exclusively  true,  the  other  must  be  false.  It  is  alone 
in  the  absolute  will  of  an  Absolute  Being,  that  the 


Fixed  Law  is   Unfixed  Will.  81 

mystery  and  conflict  of  causation,  law,  evolution, 
miracle  and  providence,  can  be  accounted  for  and 
harmonized,  as  diverse  methods  of  one  manifesting 
Power.  With  a  divine  Will  as  the  unity  of  all  things, 
the  evolution  system  may  be  true  as  a  will-method  of 
progressive  instability,  and  the  law-system  may  be 
true  as  a  zvill-viethod  of  conservative  stability.  Abso- 
lute Will  can  do  either,  both,  or  neither.  Law  is  a 
Will-power  working  to  a  plan,  with  a  method  of 
diversity ;  miracle  is  Will-power  working  specially 
to  a  purpose  without  a  method  of  any  kind.  Law  is 
nothing  but  a  method,  and  governs  nothing ;  and  not 
the  power  behind  all  methods,  governing  everything. 
Why  is  it  that  like  conditions  produce  like  results  ? 
Materialism  does  not  explain. 

We  have  said  that  originating  power  is  one,  and  its 
methods  are  two,  both  multiform  and  uniform.  They 
are  also  both  free  and  fixed.  Power  is  its  own  meas- 
ure of  freedom.  The  method  of  power  is  free  be- 
cause the  power  is  free  to  produce  dissimilar  things, 
such  as  minerals,  vegetables  and  animals.  It  is  also 
fixed  in  the  instrumentalities  by  which  it  produces 
similar  things,  such  as  moulds  for  similar  bullets  as 
before  shown,  and  dies  lor  similar  coin.  But  the 
instrument  is  always  in  the  hand  of  the  instrument 
maker.  Nature  never  gets  away  from  supernature, 
but  is  the  miracle  of  the  supernatural.  Supernature 
and  nature  are  two  realities  of  One  Being — I  do  not 
say  of  one  Person.  There  never  was  a  bullet  with- 
out a  mould  —  never  a  coin  without  a  coiner.  The 
fons  ct  origo  of   moulds  and  bullets,  and  of  die  and 

coin,  is  the  conception  of  the  One  Mind,  omnipresent 
6 


82         The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

in  the  universe.  The  originating  thought  is  the  in- 
trinsic energy  continuing  down  all  lines  of  deriva- 
tion, but  one  bullet  is  not  derived  from  another  bullet. 
In  the  concavity  of  the  mould  it  shaped  the  convexity 
of  each  bullet.  Pieces  of  coin  correspond,  not  to  each 
other,  but  to  their  common  die ;  and  the  die  trans- 
mits, without  repetition,  to  each,  the  one  original 
thought  of  its  maker.  Two  pieces  of  coin  from  the 
same  die  are  not  two  thoughts,  but  are  two  facts  of 
the  one  thought  fixed  in  the  die.  The  same  mould 
may  repeat  the  form  and  multiply  bullets,  but  never 
repeat  the  same  bullet.  Even  the  act  of  moulding 
is  never  the  same  act,  for  the  bullet  is  never  the 
same.  Every  bullet  is  an  original  product  of  the  one 
common  mould  ;  a  creation,  not  an  inheritance,  or  a 
derivation. 

With  the  second  drop  of  water  was  revealed  a  men- 
tal method  of  creative  repetitions.  Original  power 
created  the  first  drop,  and  original  power  created  the 
second,  similar  drop.  Their  similarity  was  but  the 
act  of  the  originating  mind,  imitating  its  own  work. 
This  imitativeness  may  be  free,  or  it  may  be  fixed. 
The  individual  pieces  of  similar  coin  come  from  a 
method  of  repetition  fixed  in  the  die.  This  die  re- 
peats coin  as  the  like  conditions  repeat  like  results. 

As  an  illustration  of  the  consistency  of  law  and 
miracle  in  Will,  suppose  an  invisible  expert  were  to 
roll  in  succession,  a  million  or  more  marbles,  on  a 
certain  line,  between  certain  hours  of  the  day  ;  all  who 
observe  it  would  conclude  that  it  is  a  fact,  and  that 
in  the  fact  is  a  law,  that  round  pieces  of  stone,  between 
certain  hours  of  the  day,  would  roll  successively  on  a 


Uniformity  a  Method  of  Power.  8 


o 


certain  line.  There  would  be,  to  the  observer,  a  cer- 
tain uniformity,  and  the  condition  of  certain  hours, 
would  invariably  attend  the  phenomena.  But  how 
would  the  facts  be  to  the  expert  himself?  To  him, 
each  marble  would  roll  as  impelled  and  directed  by  a 
distinct  act  of  his  will.  There  would  be  no  uniformity 
to  him,  for  each  act  would  be  original  and  independ- 
ent of  every  other  act,  and  uniformity  can  be  predi- 
cated only  of  repeated  and  dependent  acts. 

To  God  there  is  neither  uniformity  nor  necessity ; 
and  even  to  the  observer,  uniformity  is  only  a  metJiod 
not  a  power.  But  suppose  that  this  expert,  upon  the 
asking,  and  apparently  without  intermitting  his  usual 
roll  of  marbles  along  the  given  line,  should  throw  a 
marble  now  and  then,  to  a  boy  in  some  window  above 
him  ?  Such  an  act  would  be  neither  a  violation  of, 
nor  a  departure  from,  nor  an  exception  to,  the  million 
of  marbles  rolled  as  described.  Each  act  of  throwing 
the  occasional  marble  to  the  boy,  would  be  original 
and  independent,  and  as  natural  as  any  and  all  the 
other  acts  of  his  will ;  for  one  act  of  will  is  as  natural 
as  another.  With  God  there  is  no  distinction  betzveen 
natural  and  supernatural ;  and  miracle  is  as  natural 
as  law.  He  does  not  know  one  act  of  His  will  as 
miracle,  and  other  acts  as  laws.  In  the  will  of  God 
there  is  enough  uniformity  of  the  method  of  law,  and 
enough  variation  for  the  theory  of  evolution.  If  it  be 
insisted  that  will  is  too  variable  for  law,  what  must  be 
said  as  to  the  variability  of  that  uniformity  called  evo- 
lution? Variation  is  essential  to  evolution.  All 
change  from  genus  into  species,  and  of  species  into 
individuals,  is  just  so  far  a  departure  from  uniformity, 


84        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

and  so  form  the  jurisdiction  of  what  is  called  law. 
God's  will,  as  said  before,  in  inorganic  things  is 
known  as  chemical  affinity  and  gravitation  ;  in  organic 
matter,  His  will  is  known  as  life ;  in  lower  animals, 
His  will  is  known  as  instinct ;  but  to  a  man,  God  ad- 
dresses his  will  as  command  or  moral  law,  and  looks 
to  conduct.  It  is  the  will  of  God  that  some  of  His 
creatures  should  have  wills  of  their  own.  Some  of 
these  subordinate  wills,  as  in  the  case  of  brutes,  were 
merely  self-preserving  wills, and  morally  irresponsible; 
and,  as  to  them,  He  included  His  will  in  their  instincts. 
As  to  man,  it  was  God's  will  that  man  should  have 
the  will  of  reflective  intelligence  of  His  own,  and  He 
expressed  His  will  to  the  will  of  man,  in  commands. 
In  this,  man  became  a  responsible  and  moral  being. 
If  our  wills  were  not  given  to  us  by  some  other  will, 
then,  contrary  to  the  doctrine  that  like  begets  like, 
and  that  nature  makes  no  leaps,  we  should  get  our 
wills  from  that  which  had  no  wills  to  give.  We  might 
as  well  expect  to  see  a  horse  born  from  a  fish.  We 
see,  on  the  contrary,  will  derived  from  will,  all  around 
us,  in  the  phenomena  of  heredity.  As  Shakespeare 
puts  the  doctrine,  "  there's  a  Divinity  that  shapes  our 
ends,  rough  hew  them  how  we  will."  To  a  certain 
extent,  we  go  where  we  will  on  this  globe;  and  yet, 
some  superior  will  takes  the  globe,  with  all  on  it,  where 
we  do  not  will  to  go.  Just  as  in  the  case  of  one  carry- 
ing a  vase  of  fish  ;  each  fish  swims  around  according 
to  its  own  individual  will ;  but  the  will  of  another 
carries  the  vase  and  the  fish  in  spite  of  its  will,  where 
that  other  will  pleases.  The  two  orders  of  will  con 
flict,  but  each  is  free. 


Law  a  Method  of  Will.  85 

We  have  described  the  method,  and  have  been 
silent  as  to  the  power  of  law.  The  power  to  walk  is 
one  thing,  and  the  method  or  way  of  walking,  as  fast 
or  slow,  constantly  or  occasionally,  uniform  1)-  or  di- 
versely, is  another  thing.  Now,  like  results  from 
like  conditions,  is  a  method  of  uniformity  ;  but  there 
must  be  some  power  to  make  the  results  uniformly 
follow  like  conditions. 

Blackstone  says  :  "  As  man  depends  absolutely  on 
his  Maker  for  everything,  it  is  necessary  that  he 
should,  in  all  points,  conform  to  his  Maker's  will. 
This  will  of  his  Maker  is  called  the  law  of  nature." 
God's  will  pervades  the  universe  and  energizes  mat- 
ter. The  universe  is  both  the  fact,  and  a  method  of 
God's  will — its  materialization.  So  far  as  we  can 
form  an  opinion  on  this  subject,  will  is  the  centre  of 
power.  Will  creates  will.  The  Creator  wills  that 
some  of  His  creatures  shall  have  will  of  their  own. 
As  said  before,  when  Will  combines  matter,  moves 
matter,  or  vitalizes  matter,  it  is  called  Force. 

In  other  words,  Will  may  be  creative  in  cause, 
invariable  in  law,  creatively  variable  in  evolution, 
and  special  in  miracle ;  but,  if  evolution  and  law,  as 
well  as  miracle,  be  not  exponents  of  Will,  and  either 
be  exclusively  true,  the  other  two  are  false.  If  the 
old  notion  of  the  absolute  inflexibility  of  law  be  true, 
there  can  be  no  progress  of  evolution  and  no  isolated 
miracle  ;  or,  if  either  of  these  be  true,  as  a  power  or 
as  method,  there  can  be  no  inflexibility  of  law.  All 
may  be  true  as  the  acts  of  absolute  Will ;  for  the 
absolute  Will  of  an  Absolute  Being  may  do  things 
apparently  contradictory  to   finite    intelligence,  but 


86         The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

perfectly  consistent  to  infinite  intelligence.  In  tracing 
all  phenomena  back  to  Will,  we  reach  a  sufficient 
reason,  accounting  for  everything ;  but  in  setting  up 
any  one  atheistical  system  as  exclusive,  the  facts  of 
the  universe  become  too  conflicting,  and  we  cannot 
account  satisfactorily  for  anything. 

To  say  that  this  universe,  including  all  substance, 
systems  of  phenomena,  force,  motion,  feelings,  and 
results,  is  governed  by  law,  is  to  say  that  all  these 
are  governed  by  Will ;  for  Will  is  law.  For  illustra- 
tion :  as  the  idea  of  the  universe  covers  all  motions, 
whatever  is  moved,  is  moved  by  law  :  my  hand  is 
moved  ;  therefore  my  hand  is  moved  by  law.  Again, 
whatever  moves  my  hand  is  law  :  my  Will  moves  my 
hand  ;  therefore  my  will  is  law.  Now,  if  the  law- 
power  which  moves  my  hand  is  human  Will,  why  is 
not  the  law-power  which  moves  the  stars,  super- 
human Will?  Supreme  Will  is  supreme  law.  This 
Will  is  one  as  the  sun  ;  law  many  as  the  rays ;  as 
every  ray  is  all  sun,  so  every  law  is  all  Will.  If  will 
is  law-power,  law-power  can  have  no  fixed  condi- 
tions; for  will  can  have  none.  But  if  the  will-power 
which  moves  my  hand  is  not  law-power,  then  the 
universe  is  not  governed  by  law  ;  for  the  motion  of 
my  hand,  governed  by  my  will,  is  not  so  governed. 
As  just  said,  if  any  law-power  is  will-power,  why  is 
not  all  law  will  ?  And  e  converso,  if  any  will  is  law, 
why  is  not  all  will  law  within  its  sphere  ? 

But,  if  the  universe  is  governed  by  law,  the  gov- 
ernment is  personal,  not  impersonal ;  for  government 
is  a  personal  function,  and  law  implies  a  personal 
law-giver. 


Instinct  is  Fixed  Intelligence.  87 

In  matter,  that  part  of  the  universe  with  no  in- 
trinsic will  traceable  by  us,  there  is  extrinsic  per- 
sonal Will-power,  called  gravitation  ;  and  there  is  the 
method  in  which  all  objects  near  the  surface  of  the 
•earth,  for  instance,  are  drawn  towards  its  centre,  with 
a  force,  directly  as  to  mass  and  inversely  as  to  the 
square  of  the  distance.  In  the  government  of  this 
matter-part  of  the  universe  there  is  an  inevitable 
3)inst — it  cannot  do  otherwise  than  it  does. 

In  mind,  that  part  of  the  universe  where  there  are 
intelligent  things  called  brutes  and  intelligent  per- 
sons called  men,  the  case  is  different.  They  have 
intrinsic  wills  subject  to  a  supreme  extrinsic  Will. 
Law  with  the  brutes  is  the  extrinsic  Will  of  their 
Maker,  intrinsic  in  them  as  instinct.  God  fixes  the 
intelligence  of  the  bee  who  builds  its  cells  in  exactest 
hexagons,  by  making  the  eyes  of  the  bees  in  a  group 
of  hexagons.  The  lines  of  the  eyes  give  the  lines  of 
the  cells.  This  instinct  or  fixed  intelligence  is  their 
law.  As  to  man,  his  Maker's  superhuman  intelli- 
gence appeals  to  man's  human  intelligence  by  com- 
mands, motives,  prophecies,  and  by  providential 
events.  Here  the  idea  is  the  moral  s/wu/d,  not  the 
physical  must,  as  in  matter.  If  we  describe  law  as  a 
method  of  like  results  from  like  conditions,  and  yet 
remain  silent  as  to  the  power  or  cause  by  which  like 
as  from  like  we  might  as  well  speak  of  the  engine 
and  be  silent  as  to  the  motive  power  by  which  the 
engine  is  operative  :  What  is  the  power  on  the  other 
side  of  phenomena,  by  which  phenomena  are  phe- 
nomena ? 

We  are  confidently  told  that  law  is  on  this  side  of 


88         The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

phenomena,  not  on  the  other.  But  while  the  method 
of  law  is  on  this  side,  the  pozucr  of  law  is  on  the  other. 
The  shadow  on  this  side  of  the  earth  is  cast  by  sun- 
light on  the  other.  If  there  be  no  noumenon,  there 
can  be  no  phenomenon.  But  in  refining-  law  down  to 
a  method,  we  intensify  the  inquiry  into  the  power 
behind  the  method.  Turn  which  way  we  will, — 
doubt,  deny,  profane  the  Supernatural — omnipresent 
omnipotence  envelopes  and  arrests  us.  We  cannot 
have  a  method  of  facts  without  a  power  to  realize  the 
method.  All  the  phantoms  of  science  fall  back  into 
the  Eternal  Being. 

Necessity  is  inconsistent  with  the  government  of 
law.  We  are  told  that  the  universe  is  governed  by 
law,  but  if  evervthing  is  necessary,  then  nothing  can 
be  governed  ;  and,  if  everything  is  governed,  then 
nothing  is  necessary.  If  it  is  meant  that  everything 
is  necessary,  and  nothing  is  a  creation,  then,  I  ask,  is 
the  intelligence  which  we  predicate  as  the  necessity  of 
everything,  a  necessary  intelligence?  Do  we  neces- 
sarily know  that  everything  is  necessary  ?  If  we  nec- 
essarily know  this,  why  do  not  all  necessarily  know 
the  same  thing?  Are  the  religious  doubts  of  one 
necessary,  and  is  the  religious  belief  of  another  nec- 
essary ?  In  a  word,  do  all  who  hate,  necessarily  hate  ; 
and  do  all  who  love,  necessarily  love?  Are  all  dis- 
honest people  necessarily  dishonest,  and  all  honest 
people  necessarily  honest  ?  If  all  the  evil  conduct  of 
men  is  necessary,  and  has  no  creator  in  the  man  him- 
self, why  hold  him  responsible  ?  Was  it  necessary 
for  the  Egyptians  to  enslave  the  Israelites?  or  for  the 
Jews  to  have  polygamy?     Where  does  necessity  end 


There  is  no  Necessity.  89 

and  where  creation,  or  liberty  and  responsibility,  be- 
gin ?  If  that  which  necessarily  exists  be  necessarily 
unintelligent,  then  it  is  necessarily  ignorant  and 
ought  to  be  silent. 

But  necessity  is  only  a  method  of  self-prescribed 
uniformity  of  Will.  Prof.  Huxley  says,  "  If  there  be 
a  physical  necessity,  it  is  that  a  stone  unsupported 
must  fall  to  the  ground.  But  what  is  really  all  we 
know  about  this  phenomena?  Simply  that  in  all 
human  experience,  stones  have  fallen  to  the  ground 
under  these  conditions  ;  that  we  have  not  the  smallest 
reason  for  believing  that  any  stone  so  circumstanced 
will  not  fall  to  the  ground  ;  and  that  we  have,  on  the 
contrary,  every  reason  to  believe  that  it  will  so  fall. 
It  is  verv  convenient  to  indicate  that  all  the  condi- 
tions  of  belief  have  been  fulfilled  in  this  case,  by  call- 
ing the  statement  that  unsupported  stones  will  fall  to 
the  ground,  a  '  law  of  nature.'  But  when,  as  com- 
monly happens,  we  change  zuill  into  must,  we  intro- 
duce an  idea  of  necessity,  which  most  assuredly  does 
not  lie  in  the  observed  facts,  and  that  have  no  war- 
ranty that  I  can  discover  elsewhere.  For  my  part, 
I  utterly  repudiate  and  anathematize  the  intruder. 
Fact  I  know  and  law  I  know,  but  what  is  this  neces- 
sity save  an  empty  shadow  of  my  own  mind's  throw- 
ing?" Mr.  John  Stuart  Mill's  idea  of  necessity  is 
"  That  word  in  its  other  acceptations  involves  much 
more  than  mere  uniformity  of  sequence ;  it  implies 
irresistibleness.  Applied  to  the  will,  it  only  reasons 
that  the  given  cause  will  be  followed  by  the  effect 
subject  to  all  possibilities  of  counter  action  by  other 
causes;    but  in  common  use  it  stands  for  the  opera- 


90         The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

tion  of  those  causes  exclusively  which  are  supposed 
too  powerful  to  be  counteracted  at  all.  *  *  *  Any 
given  effect  is  only  necessary  provided  that  the 
causes  tending  to  produce  it  are  not  controll." 
("  Logic  "  Bk.  vi.,  ch.  2.,  §  3.) 

Admit  that  ill  consequences  nniformily  follow  ac- 
tions classed  as  evil,  because  of  those  consequences. 
Is  that  uniformity  preventable  or  not  preventable? 
If  preventable,  the  idea  of  uniformity  does  not  ex- 
clude remedial  or  interrupting  factors.  In  other 
words,  causes  called  evil  may  be  naturally  or  super- 
naturally  resisted  ;  as  in  the  case  of  one  natural  law 
preventing  the  operation  of  another  natural  law.  If 
nothing  can  prevent  certain  consequences  from  fol- 
lowing certain  actions,  there  must  be  some  irresisti- 
ble power  to  make  it  certain  ;  and  this  brings  us  back 
to  the  remark,  that  power  measures  necessity,  and 
the  necessity  of  results  is  in  the  power  to  necessitate 
results.  There  is  more  necessity  for  power  in  neces- 
sity than  in  all  else.  The  difference  between  a  sys- 
tem of  necessity  in  nature,  and  of  an  economy  of 
grace,  is  that  in  an  economy  of  grace  the  great 
Ruler  publishes  laws  that  are  holy,  just  and  good, 
and  prescribes  the  consequences  of  persistent  dis- 
obedience. But  he  ever  holds  the  conduct  and 
the  consequences,  as  he  does  all  else,  in  his  all-wise 
control.  He  is  merciful  and  forgiving,  where  a  God 
might  well  claim  to  be  merciful.  Knowing  that  it  is 
a  fearful  thing  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  living  God, 
we  are  sure  that  no  mercy  included  in  the  religious 
system  of  conduct  and  consequences  ever  encour- 
aged wrong  doing.     That  is,  which  we  observe  to  be ; 


God  is  not  under  Necessity.  91 

but  there  is  no  necessity  that  it  should  be  as  it  is. 
There  is  necessarily  no  necessity  in  anything.  All  is 
as  God  wills  it ;  and  will  to  be  will,  must  not  be 
under  any  necessity.  There  is  no  necessity  above  God, 
compelling  Him  to  make  anything  necessary  beloxv  him. 
That  which  is  called  necessity  to  men  is  no  necessity 
to  God. 

But  whatever  law  may  be  essentially,  and  to  us,  it 
is  no  law  to  the  lawgiver.  He  makes  no  law  for 
Himself ;  and  His  will  being  law  itself,  is  bound  by 
no  law.  Supreme  law  cannot  bind  Supreme  law. 
As  he  that  makes  anything  must  himself  exist  before 
the  thing  which  he  makes,  so  must  the  lawgiver  exist 
before  the  law  is  given.  Nothing  can  bind  the 
Binder.  Nothing  can  be  more  omnipotent  than 
omnipotence.  That  which  is  a  rule  to  man  is  will, 
but  it  is  not  a  rule  to  God.  Below  Him  all  is  as  He 
pleases,  whether  it  be  uniform  or  not  uniform,  con- 
nected or  disconnected  ;  whether  we  call  it  law  or 
miracle. 

Nature  is  the  code  of  the  supernatural.  Supernat- 
ural Power  behind  the  stars,  and  system  of  stars,  is, 
alike,  the  moral  authority  of  social  as  of  material 
systems,  and  of  confederate  systems.  As  law  is  like 
a  royal  coin,  precious  and  current,  whether  expressed 
in  material  symbols  or  prescribed  in  rules  of  human 
conduct,  so  the  Will  manifesting  the  material  and 
moral  systems  is  one  and  the  same.  The  unity  of 
law  is  the  unity  of  Will.  To  understand  the  highest 
generalizations  of  either  the  material  or  moral  sys- 
tem of  law,  we  must  understand  the  highest  general- 
izations of  both  ;  exactly  as  we  understand  one  we 


92         The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

shall  understand  the  other.  Therefore,  with  our  eyes 
fixed  upon  the  uniform  manifestations  of  will  in  the 
laws  of  matter,  as  admitted  in  recent  thought,  let  us 
study  in  the  revelations  of  the  material  and  visible, 
the  nature  of  will  in  the  moral  and  the  invisible. 
Leaving  theories  to  shape  themselves,  let  us  go 
directly  to  the  facts  of  the  universe.  If  nature  is 
one  the  evolution  of  the  supernatural  will  as  law 
must  be  one  ;  and  what  is  found  authoritative  in  the 
material,  will  not  be  contradicted  in  the  moral.  As 
the  radii  of  a  circle  have  the  same  centre,  and  as  the 
two  equal  angles  at  the  base  of  an  isosceles  triangle 
have  the  same  vertex,  so  we  may  expect  the  laws  of 
matter  and  morality  to  focalize  in  the  same  will,  and 
manifest  their  presence  by  the  same  operative  method. 
If  the  laws  of  matter  multiply  effects  and  segregate 
phenomena,  so  the  laws  of  morality  multiply  results. 
As  harmony  is  the  result  of  compulsory  obedience  in 
matter,  so  it  is  of  voluntary  obedience  in  morality. 
The  evolutionary  laws  of  integration,  environment, 
propagation,  growth  and  correlation  are  the  same  in 
both.  Supernatural  unity  of  material  and  moral  law 
is  seen  in  the  unity  of  essence,  the  unity  of  sanctions 
and  the  unity  of  manifestations. 

Blackstone  says  that  "  law  depends  not  upon  our 
approbations,  but  upon  the  maker  s  will."  If  Black- 
stone  be  correct,  law  is  neither  a  cause  nor  an  effect, 
but,  as  a  volition,  is  sui  generis.  Statute  law  is  the 
will  of  the  legislature.  International  law  is  the 
will  of  the  nations.  The  law  for  the  servant  is 
the  will  of  the  master.  In  ultimate  generalization, 
we  may  say  that  all  law  is  will.     It  is  in  this  sense  of 


Prohibitions  Negatively  Imply  Laws.      93 

will,  that  we  everywhere  use  the  word  law.  The 
supreme  will  is  the  supreme  law.  Laws,  as  forces  of 
will,  may  be  distinct  as  the  waves,  but  they  are  in 
essence  one,  as  the  sea.  Law  is  the  universal  nature 
of  things,  relations,  and  actions.  It  is  not  made,  but 
it  exists.  There  is  as  much  law  at  one  time  as  an- 
other. There  was  no  more  or  other  law  at  the  time 
of  Justinian  than  at  the  time  of  the  XII  Tables. 
There  were  more  prohibitions,  but  not  more  law  ; 
for  universal  reason  neither  increases  nor  diminishes. 
When  man  is  commanded  not  to  steal,  no  new  law  is 
made.  Honesty  is  the  law — dishonesty  its  violation. 
Law  is  in  doing  or  being;  not  in  not  doing  or  not 
being.  Prohibitions  may  indicate  or  reveal  law,  but 
they  are  not  laws.  They  only  forbid  the  breaking  of 
law.  Prohibition  implies  the  law.  As  society  grows 
older,  it  gains,  through  religion  or  mere  human  rea- 
son, what  the  law  of  universal  reason  is,  and  declares 
prohibitions  against  its  violation.  So  the  enlighten- 
ment of  the  world  enables  it  to  discover  what  the 
nature  of  things  requires  or  necessitates,  and  also  to 
prohibit  its  disregard.  The  affirmation  of  law  implies 
a  prohibition  of  its  violation,  and  the  prohibition  of 
an  act  implies  the  law  threatened  to  be  broken. 
Thou  shalt  not  steal  implies  the  right  of  property 
and  possession  of  a  thing.  The  correlative  of 
every  affirmation  of  law  is  the  negation  of  its  vio- 
lation, and  the  reverse.  As  the  convex  side  of  every 
curved  line  has,  on  the  obverse,  a  side  of  correlative 
concavity,  so  every  law  has  a  correlative  warning  or 
prohibition  not  to  violate  it.  The  law  of  gravitation 
is  in  the  falling  tower,  not  in  the  notice  to  keep  from 


94         The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

under  it.  Law  is  in  the  ownership  of  land,  not  in  the 
posted  warnings  not  to  trespass  on  it.  Law  is  exec- 
utory, not  prohibitory.  The  multiplicity  of  prohibi- 
tions do  not  multiply  laws:  They  at  most  suggest 
what  the  law  is  whose  violation  is  forbidden. 

For  this  reason,  the  growth  of  codes,  as  that  of 
Justinian,  does  not  indicate  the  growth  of  law,  but 
the  growth  of  its  violations  to  be  prevented.  So  the 
maximum  of  law,  as  it  is  called,  is  the  maximum  of 
its  violation.  The  multiplicity  of  rules  of  morality 
indicates  a  multiplicity  of  immoral  customs.  Rules 
of  morality  multiply  as  principles  of  morality  are 
broken.  We  must  distinguish  between  legal  rules 
which  are  logic,  and  the  principle  of  legal  principles 
which  is  natural  or  universal  reason.  The  law  of 
right  conduct  of  men  is  the  same  as  the  law  of  grav- 
itation of  matter;  for  both  are  will.  Gravitation 
holds  matter  to  centres  and  systems  of  centres,  pro- 
ducing the  harmony  of  circular  motion  ;  so  the  laws 
of  moral  conduct  hold  men,  races,  and  nations  to 
social  centres  and  systems  of  centres,  producing 
domestic,  municipal,  and  international  order  and 
harmony. 

Look  at  the  consequences  of  the  disobedience  of  mat- 
ter. "  If,"  says  Hooker,  "  nature  should  intermit  her 
course,  and  leave  altogether,  though  it  were  but  for 
awhile,  the  observation  of  her  own  laws ;  if  those 
principal  and  mother  elements  of  the  world,  whereof 
all  things  in  this  lower  world  are  made,  should  lose 
the  qualities  which  now  they  have;  if  the  frame  of 
that  heavenly  arch  erected  over  our  heads  should 
loosen  and  dissolve  itself ;  if  celestial  spheres  should 


Consequences  of  Disobedience.  95 

forget  their  wonted  motions,  and  by  irregular  volu- 
bility turn  themselves  any  way  as  it  might  happe'n  ; 
if  the  prince  of  the  lights  of  heaven,  which  as  a  giant 
doth  run  his  universal  course,  should,  as  it  were, 
through  a  languishing  faintness,  begin  to  stand  and 
rest  himself ;  if  the  moon  should  wander  from  her 
beaten  way,  the  times  and  seasons  of  the  year  blend 
themselves  by  disordered  and  confused  mixtures,  and 
the  winds  breathe  out  their  last  gasp,  the  clouds 
yield  no  rain,  the  earth  be  defeated  of  heavenly  in- 
fluence, the  fruits  of  the  earth  pine  away,  as  children 
at  the  withered  breast  of  their  mother,  no  longer  able 
to  yield  them  relief,  what  would  become  of  man 
himself,  whom  these  things  now  do  all  serve  ?  See 
we  not  plainly  that  obedience  of  creatures  unto  the 
law  of  nature  is  the  stay  of  the  whole  world  ? " 

The  consequences  of  disobedience  are  not  different 
in  morality,  but  infinitely  more  dreadful.  If  in  moral 
life  every  man  should  disregard  every  right  of  his 
fellow-man  ;  and  if  every  husband  and  wife  should 
violate  every  law  of  their  relation,  and  every  parent 
and  child  be  unnatural  to  each  other ;  if  every  master 
should  oppress  and  not  pay  the  wages  of  the  servant, 
and  every  servant  disobey  and  rob  his  master ;  if 
every  government  should  seek  to  crush  its  citizens, 
and  all  the  citizens  constantly  war  upon  the  govern- 
ment; if  every  man  were  to  treat  every  contract  as 
a  baseless  promise ;  if  no  man  had  an  admitted  right 
to  live,  to  own  lands  and  chattels — in  a  word,  if  there 
were  no  obedience,  and  every  man  were  a  law  unto 
himself,  would  not  social  chaos  and  reconstruction 
come  as  certainly  from  disobedience  in  morality,  as 


96         The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

chaos  and  reconstruction  would  come  from  disobe- 
dience in  matter?  The  same  will  is  behind  all.  The 
threads  of  all  laws  are  gathered  into  the  same  hand. 
Nature  rejoices  in  such  principal  things  as  the  ocean 
and  the  sun,  where  the  many  look  to  the  one.  Cen- 
tripetalism  is  the  law  for  both  atoms  and  men. 

The  uniformity  of  effects  shows  unity  of  cause. 
The  uniformity  of  phenomena  is  the  exponent  of  the 
unity  of  law.  This  unity  is  in  the  analogy  that  moral 
laws  are  as  self-assertive  as  those  we  call  inorganic 
or  material,  and  can  no  more  be  broken  with  im- 
punity than  they  ;  for,  we  repeat,  they  both  are  the 
expression  of  one  will.  All  wrong  is  indelible  ;  and, 
in  a  system  of  mere  material  law,  disobedience  is 
neither  forgotten  nor  forgiven  ;  for  there  can  be  no 
disobedience  as  such.  But  moral  responsibility  tran- 
scends knowledge.  Its  limitations  wander  through 
a  moral  economy  of  the  ages,  untraceable  to  finite 
intelligence.  A  cause  is  an  immortal  thing.  A  wrong 
is  an  ever  parturient  womb,  like  that  of  Milton's  hag 
at  the  gates  of  hell,  from  which  a  life-repeating 
progeny  comes,  to  curse  and  die.  A  felony  is  social 
suicide.  Every  act  has  its  equivalence  in  either  com- 
pensations for  suffering  virtue  and  acts  of  kindness, 
in  reparations  for  moral  injuries,  or  retributions  for 
injustice.  But  we  have  no  telescope  with  which  to 
look  on  to  the  hidden  end.  Be  sure  your  wrong- 
doing will  find  you  out  and  drive  you  into  a  corner. 
"  'Tis  the  eternal  law  that  where  guilt  is,  sorrow  shall 
answer  it." 

Nature   neither  sleeps  nor  dies;    for  supernature 
never  sleeps  or  dies.     For  every  injury  she  returns  a 


Unity  of  Supernatural  Will.  97 

blow.  As  you  twist  the  twig,  so  must  run  the  sap  of 
the  tree.  All  beginnings  are  solemn,  but  bad  ones 
"  cast  their  shadows  before."  Punishment  may  seem 
to  be  postponed ;  but,  as  in  the  constitution  of  man, 
matter  and  morality  are  each  the  avenging  Nemesis 
of  the  wrongs  of  the  other  -punishment  is  sure  to 
come. 

As  to  the  special  ground  of  essential  right,  it  is 
eternally  omnipresent,  and  let  us  see  what  method, 
if  any,  material  science  furnishes  to  ascertain  the 
fact  of  law.  Can  we  use,  in  reasoning  about 
morals,  the  principles  used  in  reasoning  about 
matter ;  and,  by  induction  in  morals  as  well  as  in 
matter,  discover  any  one  principle  upon  which  all 
material  and  moral  phenomena  rest?  Does  not  the 
universality  of  law  necessitate  the  unity  of  law  ?  If 
it  can  be  seen  that  a  tree  and  a  system  of  morals  are 
made  upon  the  same  principles,  we  can  well  believe 
in  a  one  Law-giver,  and  in  the  unity  of  His  will  as 
laws.  Similarity  will  be  lost  in  identity,  and  parallels 
will  meet  in  infinity.  This  identity  of  principle  of 
all  phenomena,  material  and  moral,  is  seen  in  univer- 
sal organizations,  universal  development,  universal 
individualization.  This  is  evolution,  and  pertains  to 
the  method,  not  the  cause  of  manifestations.  The 
cause  lies  out  of  sight.  Herbert  Spencer  calls  it. 
"  The  Unknowable.''  We  can  know  what  law  is,  but 
not  why. 

The  supernatural  unity  of  will  in  law  is  seen  in  the 

unity  of  all  evolution.     The  necessities  for  abstract 

unity  of  law  compel  the  venture  upon  most  abstract 

generalizations.     But  we  shall  be  more  than  repaid 

7 


98         The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

for  such  dry  investigations  and  discussions  if  we  find 
the  unity  we  seek.  Unity  is  an  essential  quality. 
Circumferences  must  have  centres.  From  the  one 
all  lines  converge,  and  from  the  other  all  lines  di- 
verge. There  can  be  no  diversity  without  a  correl- 
ative unity.  Plato  says  that  all  unity  tends  to  plu- 
rality, and  all  plurality  ends  in  unity.  As  the 
engineer  must  know  the  unity  of  his  machine,  as 
well  as  the  diversity  of  the  several  parts,  in  order  to 
manage  its  tremendous  power,  so  the  lawyer  must 
know  law  in  the  unity  of  its  principles,  as  well  as  the 
plurality  of  its  rules,  in  order  to  know  his  ground. 

Laws  are  not  made,  but  they  appear  as  there  is 
need.  Like  the  "  ever-becoming"  of  Heraclitus,  law 
is.  "  Mankind's  notions  of  right  are  generally  found- 
ed upon  prescription."11  "  Roman  law  grew  out  of 
the  varied  experience  and  the  practiced  forethought 
of  a  great  people,  and  which  provided  naturally  and 
easily  for  the  numberless  questions  of  human  life  and 
intercourse."5  "  The  study  of  a  great  variety  of  na- 
tions shows  that  none  ot  the  conditions  essential  to 
the  existence  of  men  in  a  social  order  can  be  said  to 
have  been  at  any  time  artificially  made  for  them  by 
any  prophet  or  law-giver.  The  utmost  that  legisla- 
tors can  effect  is  to  modify,  to  improve,  to  purify  ex- 
isting systems  and  institutions.  To  none  of  them, 
that  we  know  of  in  history,  was  it  given  to  find  a  void 
which  he  could  fill  with  a  theory  of  his  own  inven- 
tion. Laws  are  not  made,  but  grow.  Even  now,  in 
our  time  of  restless  and   over-prolific  parliamentary 

(a)  Hallam's  Mid.  Ages,  337.  (b)  Church's  Mid.  Ages,  53. 


Evolution  does  not  Pertain  to  Origin.       99 

law-making,  new  laws  mark  only  the  endeavors  of 
legislators  to  find  the  forms  in  which  the  general 
feeling  of  justice  is  to  be  expressed,  or  in  which  new 
wants,  felt  by  the  community,  are  to  be  satisfied  under 
public  authority. "a  And  in  order  not  to  conflict  or 
fail,  they  must  come  from  one  will.  Law,  to  be  law, 
is  infallibly  wise. 

The  evolution  of  matter,  the  evolution  of  morals, 
or  rather  the  evolution  of  the  knowledge  of  morals, 
or  law,  and  the  evolution  of  character,  show  that  the 
laws  of  all  phenomena,  both  material  and  social,  are 
the  same.  Though  evolution,  as  a  theory,  received 
the  assent,  qualified  or  unqualified,  of  many,  if  not  a 
majority,  of  the  thoughtful  minds  of  the  age ;  yet, 
before  we  can  use  it  in  the  study  of  ethics  or  char- 
acter, we  must  ascertain  more  definitely  what  it 
means. 

The  word  evolution  expresses  for  science  what 
the  word  progress  formerly  did  for  society.  Both 
words  cover  the  idea  of  traceable  derivation  or 
development,  not  of  causation.  To  evolve  is  not  to 
cause.  As  a  philosophy  of  the  beginning  of  things, 
like  other  schemes,  evolution  is  useless.  In  the  lan- 
guage of  Herbert  Spencer,  its  great  teacher  :  "  Evo- 
lution, under  its  simplest  and  most  general  aspect,  is 
the  integration  of  matter,  and  the  concomitant  dissipa- 
tion of  motion."  What  is  meant  by  "integration  of 
matter,"  and  how  does  that  principle  in  material 
phenomena  help  us  to  understand  the  nature  of  ethi- 
cal principles?     As  nature  can  not  obey  contradic- 

(a)  Ihne's  Early  Rome,  ch.  IV. 


ioo       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

tory  commands,  the  unity  of  law  is  a  necessity. 
Accordingly  we  see  all  phenomena  have  the  same 
method  of  manifestation  from  the  many  to  the  few, 
from  the  incoherent  to  the  coherent,  and  from  the 
homogeneous  to  the  heterogeneous. 

In  the  integration  of  matter  the  law  is  either  that 
of  chemical  affinity  or  of  mechanical  force.  When 
the  cream  gathers  on  the  surface  of  milk;  when 
straws  and  litter  in  the  current  become  collected  in 
an  eddy  ;  when  boiling  syrup  crystallizes  into  sugar  ; 
when  a  crowd  gathers  in  the  street;  when  various 
religious  opinions  cease  discussion,  and  assent  to  a 
creed ;  when  political  parties  stop  agitation,  and 
agree  upon  a  platform  ;  when  many  things  in  action 
become  one  in  repose  ;  all  division  of  labor,  all  com- 
mittee work  in  legislative  bodies,  all  specialties  in 
skill,  all  variant  moral  notions  formed  into  rules  of 
conduct — all  this  is  integration,  or  the  first  step  in 
evolution.  The  exploring  star-gazer,  who,  in  imagin- 
ation, sees  the  worlds  come  out  of  the  initial  mist 
enveloping  the  beginning  of  all  things,  beholds  inte- 
gration upon  integration — the  mist,  the  sphere,  the 
system  of  spheres,  and  system  of  systems.  The 
great  law  is  exemplified  in  the  rose  bush  of  your 
garden.  It  is  an  organization  of  special  elements, 
developing  into  structure,  beauty,  and  sweetness.  It 
is  Will  taking  organic  order.  For  further  illustra- 
tion, take  a  given  volume  of  oxygen  and  twice  that 
volume  of  hydrogen.  Bring  these  together  and  you 
have  water;  which  is  distinctly  neither  gas,  yet 
chemically  both.  The  hydrogen  in  it  will  no  longer 
burn,    nor    will    its    oxygen    any    longer    promote 


Laws  are  in  New  Relations.  101 

combustion.  Neither  gas  can  then  obey  its  own 
distinctive  laws.  When  water  was  produced  it 
brought  its  own  law  with  it.  Indeed,  as  the  laws  of 
a  thing  are  in  the  thing  itself,  so  a  drop  of  water 
bears  in  its  sphere  a  whole  code  of  the  laws  of  matter. 

Ethical  law  observes  the  same  method.  Moral 
thoughts  integrate  into  moral  convictions,  and  con- 
victions into  laws,  and  laws into  systems,  and  systems 
into  codes.  New  laws  are  in  new  relations.  The 
law  does  not  anticipate  the  relation,  but  the  relation 
exhibits  the  law.  The  law  of  evolution  takes  hold 
of  the  life  within  nature  itself,  and  correlation  man- 
ifests the  movement  of  that  life  in  its  relations  without. 

Suppose  that  only  two  men  existed  in  the  whole 
world,  and  each  dwelt  in  a  separate  island.  What- 
ever may  be  said  of  their  rights  when  apart,  bring 
them  together  and  each  becomes  to  the  other  a 
possible  wrong-doer  ;  and,  as  to  the  other,  each  has 
rights.  Chrysippus  said,  "  Men  exist  for  each  other."a 
As  the  hydrogen  and  oxygen  together  make  some- 
thing that  neither  is  by  itself,  so  these  two  persons, 
when  associated,  develop  a  law  of  property  and  of 
person  that  neither  needed  by  himself.  The  two 
coming  together  make  a  relation,  and  the  relation  is 
its  own  law.b 

If  there  were  but  one  person  in  all  the  world,  the 
law  of  that  one  would  be  absolute  selfishness.  His 
ownership  and  possession  would  be  exclusive  —  at 
least  undisputed.     All  the  sunlight  would  be  his,  all 


(a)  [Zeller  on  Stoicism,  312.]     Protagoras  said,  "Relations  are  for  all." 
(£)  Paulus,  Digest,  Lib.  1,  Tit.  1-3;  1  Lecky  E.  M.  313. 


102        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

the  hills  and  valleys,  all  the  springs  and  rivers,  all  the 
gold  and  silver,  the  cattle  upon  the  thousand  hills,  all 
the  trees  and  fruits,  would  be  his.  But  the  appear- 
ance of  a  second  person  would  be  another  unit  of 
selfishness,  and  if  there  was  of  any  one  thing  only 
enough  for  one,  and  both  sought  it,  there  would  be  a 
conflict,  in  which  the  stronger  would  prevail.  Each 
would  be  supreme  to  himself,  but  not  to  the  other. 
But  harmony  requires  law  that  shall  be  supreme  over 
both. 

One  law  ties  many  different  things  together,  and 
one  method  of  law  is  the  same  as  to  matter  and 
mind.  If  one  thing  could  exist  by  itself,  it  would 
be  powerless.  One  atom  without  another  atom 
amounts  to  nothing.11  The  end  of  essential  mo- 
rality is  one  of  self-preservation,  the  survival  of  the 
fittest,  or  the  perpetuation  of  that  which  has  been 
begun.  For  illustration,  when  the  second  man  ap- 
peared, the  producing  power  cannot  be  supposed  to 
have  worked  in  the  dark,  or  in  vain.  The  producing 
power  is  also  the  preserving  or  continuing  power. 
Therefore,  that  is  right  to  be  done  by  either  or  both 
of  the  two  which  will  best  preserve  the  two.  This  is 
not  the  ancient  doctrine  of  Summum  Bonum,  because 
that  looked  to  results  that  could  not  be  estimated 
alike  by  all.  The  scope  was  too  wide  and  remote 
for  any  one.  But  the  law  of  harmony,  discoverable 
by  each  one,  was  a  law  practicable  to  each  one.  But 
essential  law  is  not  more  a  law  of  harmony  than  a 

(a)  "  Nothing  in  this  world  is  single, 
All  things  by  a  law  divine 
In  one  another's  being  mingle."  # 


Everything  Seeks  Perfectibility.  103 

law  of  preservation  ;  and  the  question  is,  what  exists 
to  be  preserved.  For  instance,  when  two  men  looked 
each  other  in  the  face  for  the  first  time,  what  were 
they  to  each  other?  Both  had  a  right  to  live.  Were 
they  strangers,  enemies,  or  brothers?  Or,  when  man 
and  woman  met  for  the  first  time,  did  they  meet  with 
permanent  or  transient  interest  in  each  other  ?  Did 
they  meet  as  merely  lower  animals,  or  were  they 
social  beings  of  a  progressive  destiny?  The  law  is 
according  to  the  answer  to  these  questions.  That 
only  is  done  which  is  well  done,  and  what  is  done  is 
to  be  preserved. 

As  everything  in  the  universe  seeks  its  own  perfec- 
tion, so  groups  of  things  seek  to  create  something 
that  each  is  not,  and  which  shall  be  higher  than  all. 
For  instance,  a  tree  is  a  compound.  From  the  earth 
comes  one  agent,  from  the  air  another,  and  from 
the  water  another,  and  all  these  work  together 
for  the  good  of  every  other  thing,  and  for  their  own 
glory.  The  one  tree  integrated,  or  evolved,  out  of 
these  several  crude  elements,  becomes  a  marvel  of 
order  and  beauty.  It  is  what  none  of  the  elements 
could  be  by  itself,  and  only  appeared  when  they  com- 
bined. Thus,  integration,  or  initial  evolution,  is  a 
way  of  creation.  Antagonism  subsides,  discussion 
between  individuals  ceases,  agreement  is  reached. 
The  solidification  of  the  diffuse,  the  fixedness  of  the 
elastic,  the  unification  of  the  many,  the  repose  of  the 
disturbed,  the  equilibrium  of  the  unstable,  is  the 
method  of  law- — of  development — whether  in  matter 
or  society.  By  the  universal  law  of  compensation, 
what  is  lost  in   one  direction  is  gained  in  another. 


104       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

Hydrogen,  in  becoming  a  constituent  of  water,  sur- 
renders its  volatility,  and  becomes  a  standard  of 
weight.  Oxygen,  to  become  water,  ceases  to  pro- 
mote combustion,  but  becomes  active  in  extinguish- 
ing it.  The  will  of  the  many  individuals  becomes 
the  will  of  the  one  state.  In  a  word,  all  things  that 
come  together  must  leave  something  of  themselves 
in  abeyance.  All  building,  whether  of  worlds,  of 
law,  or  of  character,  is  on  the  same  principle  by 
which  motion  becomes  organic  rest ;  incoherence 
becomes  coherence,  and  the  transient  becomes  the 
permanent.  This  integrating  principle  has  been 
active  from  the  beginning.  As  the  gaseous  form  of 
the  earth  lost  its  heat,  it  lost  some  of  its  motion. 
Particles  cohered  or  solidified  ;  the  crust  thickened, 
and  effects  multiplied  upon  effects,  until  chaos 
evolved  into  order,  and  light  came  from  sun  and 
star,  and  vegetal  chemistry  prepared  food  for  think- 
ing beast  and  conscious  man. 

What  is  law,  and  what  are  the  ethics  of  law  ?  That 
social  condition  which  is  best  is  ethics  ;  and  all  ethics 
is  law.  All  so-called  law-making  is  the  codification 
or  integration  of  ethical  ideas.  Law  is  both  an  eth- 
ical principle  and  a  logical  rule.  And  yet  the  prin- 
ciple and  the  rule  are  not  two  distinct  things,  but 
only  different  sides  of  the  same  thing.  Moralists 
ascertain  and  define  the  principle,  legislatures  pre- 
scribe, and  courts  announce  the  rule — in  other  words, 
there  is  statutory  morality,  adjudicated  morality,  and 
speculative  morality.  The  principle  is  to  the  rule 
what  the  soul  is  to  the  body,  and  without  which  the 
body  cannot  be.     Cessante  ratione,  lex  cessat.     Neither 


No  Ethics  tn  Law.  105 

the  conscience  nor  the  relations  of  society  could  long- 
tolerate  an  immoral  law.  Indeed,  an  immoral  law  is 
not  law,  though  it  may  be  aquiesced  in  as  law.  So- 
cial necessity  as  law  emphatically  forbids  anything 
contra  bonos  mores.  Take  the  ethics  out  of  law,  and 
what  have  you  left  but  a  rule?  Law  and  its  max- 
ims are  adjudicated  ethics,  or  abstract  ethics  con- 
verted into  an  authoritative  rule  of  action.  For  the 
purpose  of  getting  at  this  ethical  principle  or  Tight- 
ness in  claims  triable  before  the  courts,  are  all  the 
rules  of  evidence  and  all  the  forms  of  procedure. 
Ethics,  or  rightness,  then,  as  the  appointment  of  su- 
pernatural will,  is  the  essence  of  law.  In  other  words, 
law  is  only  applied  ethics. 

In  the  law,  moral  principles,  like  sunlight  on  a 
rolling  planet,  rest  upon  and  glorify  whichever  side 
comes  up.  The  sun  is  ever  the  same,  but  the  side  of 
the  planet  next  to  it  is  ever  changing.  Rather,  mor- 
ality is  to  the  law  what  sun  is  to  the  wheat ;  without 
the  sun  there  is  no  wheat,  and  without  morality  there 
is  no  law.  New  events  evolve  new  relations,  and 
new  relations  bring  their  own  moral  principles,  or 
laws,  with  them.  Law  is  an  optimist,  and  by  drop- 
ping the  obsolete  and  applying  the  new,  ever  seeks 
its  own  perfection.  Rules  of  conduct  scattered 
through  the  moral  sentiments  of  mankind  attract 
each  other,  and  become  a  code.  This  is  legal  inte- 
gration. Uncertainty,  discussion,  and  conflicting 
opinion  agree  upon  some  formula  to  which  applies 
the  arbitrary  doctrine  of  Stare  Decicis — let  the  decis- 
ions stand  ;  let  something  be  settled.  Society  seeks 
to  know  the  universal  truths  concerning  itself,  and  to 


106       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

announce  them  as  authoritative  rules  of  conduct. 
The  special  is  ever  transmuting  itself  into  the  univer- 
sal, and  the  universal  into  the  special,  and  the  tem- 
poral is  ever  moving  on  into  the  eternal.  The  law 
of  this  universe  is  improvement,  not  change  for  the 
sake  of  change. 

The  Jewish  conscience,  social  habits,  and  theocratic 
polity  integrated  in  the  Ten  Commandments  or  code 
of  Moses.  Greek  wisdom,  sentiment,  and  conviction 
integrated  in  the  code  of  Solon.  Roman  law  was 
first  a  family  discipline  ;  afterwards  it  integrated  in 
the  laws  of  the  Twelve  Tables,  in  the  annual  Edict 
of  the  Praetor,  in  the  Responses  of  the  Jurisconsults, 
in  the  codes  of  Gregory,  Hermogenes,  and  Justinian. 
All  codifications  are  integrations  ;  and  so  universal  is 
litigation,  that  codification  upon  codification  is  con- 
stantly made ;  nearly  every  dispute  between  man 
and  man  being  now  brought  into  court. 

Here,  the  complexity  of  material  causes  and  the 
complexity  of  moral  causes  are  the  same  in  some 
principle  common  to  both.  What  is  that  principle? 
The  integration  of  hydrogen  and  oxygen  produce 
water,  a  substance  that  is  neither,  but  chemically 
both.  So  in  moral  law.  Two  individuals,  in  associ- 
ating, mingle  their  rights  and  form  a  third,  including 
the  individual  rights  of  both,  but  exclusively  the 
right  of  neither.  The  right  of  the  two,  when  associ- 
ated, is  as  much  a  new  right  as  a  drop  of  water  is  a 
new  compound.  The  moral  and  the  material  chem- 
istry is  the  same.  But  notice  that  I  do  not  say  that 
moral  law  is  created  by  moral  relations,  only  that  it 
then  appears.     The  unity  of  material  and  moral  law 


Cause  One;  Effect  Many.  107 

is  in  the  unity  of  plan,  or,  rather,  the  unity  of  all 
law  is  in  the  unity  of  the  idea  of  all  law.  Matter 
integrates  and  makes  the  world  of  matter.  Moral 
principles  integrate  and  make  the  laws  of  conduct. 
The  integration  of  one  is  one  with  the  integration  of 
the  other. 

But  supplemental  to  this  we  see  the  unity  of  law  in 
the  further  fact  that  all  causes  multiply  their  effects. 
Universally,  the  effect  is  more  complex  than  the 
incomplex  cause.  Light  a  candle,  and  you  have  heat, 
light,  carbonic  acid,  water,  and  divers  colors.  Throw 
a  pebble  in  the  ocean,  and  you  move  every  drop  in 
its  awful  fullness.  Raise  your  hand  or  whisper  a 
word,  and  you  stir  all  the  atmosphere  that  surrounds 
our  globe.  If  law  be  a  cause,  we  see  the  law  of 
gravitation  produce  many  effects  in  the  water  gath- 
ered in  mountain-tops.  As  it  gravitates  down  through 
the  gorges,  it  gathers  the  materials  for  the  masonry 
of  its  channel  in  the  plains  below.  It  abrades  from 
the  hillsides  fragments  of  stone,  picks  up  the  sand 
and  washes  out  the  earth,  carrying  all  in  solution, 
until  a  less  precipitous  flow  weakens  its  momentum. 
Then  begins,  from  the  one  law  of  gravitation,  a  mul- 
tiplying of  effects,  calling  out  other  laws.  Gravita- 
tion pulls  down  its  heaviest  material  along  the 
margin,  where  the  current  begins  to  weaken.  The 
masonry  here  is  wonderfully  perfect.  Every  pebble 
is  laid  exactly  where  the  strength  of  the  future  bank 
of  the  river  will  most  need  it.  Pebble  is  laid  on 
pebble  for  years,  it  may  be  for  centuries — for  nature 
keeps  no  chronology — until  the  waters  have  walled 
themselves  in,  leaving  the  plains  on  either  side  as  a 
home  for  man. 


io8       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

The  second  effect  of  gravitation,  as  it  pulls  the 
waters  down  the  mountain-side,  after  it  has  surren- 
dered the  pebble  to  form  the  wall  of  the  bank,  is  to 
carry  the  lighter  sand  a  little  more  to  the  side,  and 
drop  it  behind  the  pebbles,  as  a  parallel  and  support- 
ing buttress. 

The  third  effect  is  to  carry  the  lighter  soil  still 
further  back,  and  form  a  bank  of  earth  behind  both 
the  former ;  thus  building  for  itself  its  own  pathway 
to  the  receiving  sea.  Here  are  different,  but  consist- 
ent effects  from  the  same  law. 

Again,  the  sun  shines  on  a  field  where  both  tares 
and  wheat  are  sown.  The  same  cause  produces 
effects  specifically  different.  It  quickens  both  the 
the  tares  and  the  wheat. 

Again,  one  grain  of  wheat  will  produce  manifold 
other  grains.  This  wheat  becomes  food  ;  this  food 
nourishes  brain,  this  brain  sustains  the  song  of  the 
poet,  the  eloquence  of  the  orator,  and  the  thought  of 
the  statesman.  One  case  of  infectious  disease  flies 
from  man  to  man,  until  a  dreadful  epidemic  lays 
towns,  cities,  and  states  in  the  grave.  How  trivial 
often  the  cause  of  disasters,  and  yet  how  multiplied 
the  effects.  From  one  little  cell,  life  is  said  to  con- 
tinue itself  through  all  living  forms.  From  the  mon- 
otony of  the  inorganic  mineral  arose  the  innumerable 
vegetable  life,  with  its  marvelous  functions  of  inhala- 
tion and  exhalation,  the  chemistry  of  its  assimilative 
powers,  its  beautiful  forms,  and  the  utilities  of  its 
fibrous  substances.  With  it  man  builds  the  palace 
and  the  ship,  the  temple  of  worship  and  the  den  of 
despair,    the    forum    of    the   law  and   the  throne   of 


Moral  Growth  is  Development.  109 

authority.  Indeed,  to  specify  the  manifold  effects 
of  a  cause  would  be  to  give  a  catalogue  of  the  num- 
ber and  splendor  of  all  phenomena — of  heat,  light, 
electricity ;  and  of  all  forms,  colors,  sound,  and 
motion. 

As  in  matter,  so  in  morals.  Moral  effects  from 
moral  causes  are  prodigiously  multiplied.  Mackin- 
tosh and  Buckle  would  have  us  believe  the  contrary ; 
but  they  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that,  while  the  theoret- 
ical morality  of  each  man  is  left  to  self-culture  and 
the  teachings  of  religion  and  the  philosophers,  his 
practical  morality,  as  it  applies  to  his  relations  to  his 
fellow-man,  is  taught  him  by  municipal  law  and  the 
courts ;  and  there  is  nothing  stationary  in  the  teach- 
ings of  these. 

Society,  as  it  grows  older,  and  as  new  relations  and 
questions  arise,  more  and  more  prescribes  and  en- 
forces moral  conduct.  In  nothing  does  civilization 
show  less  stagnation  and  more  advance,  than  in  the 
growing  perfection  of  its  law  ;  absorbing  and  adju- 
dicating, from  age  to  age,  the  moral  sentiments  of 
mankind.  Rome  is  still  potential  through  her  system 
of  civil  morality  as  thought  out  by  her  jurisconsults 
and  adjudicated  by  her  praetors.  Law  being  law 
only  as  it  is  morality,  no  one  can  say,  in  the  presence 
of  its  voluminous  body,  that  moral  ideas  are  station- 
ary. Account  for  it  as  you  may,  whether  by  the 
influence  of  great  religious  or  general  intellectual 
culture,  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  of  great 
lawyers  are  so  many  great  moralists,  and  show  that 
moral  science  is  the  true  and  ever  enlarging  basis  of 
law  and  of  a  true  civilization.     The  highest  happi- 


1 10       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

ness  of  mankind  lives  along  moral  lines ;  and,  as 
everything  seeks  its  own  perfection,  so  moral  ideas 
must  grow  more  and  more  enlightened  and  more 
universal. 

To  show  how  moral  causes  multiply  moral  effects, 
take  any  one  act  of  life.  On  the  making  of  a  prom- 
issory note,  the  drawing  of  a  bill  of  exchange,  there 
arises,  with  and  in  the  act,  a  whole  volume  of  moral 
rules  called  laws.  The  principle  of  rightness  at  once 
regulates  its  parties,  their  competency,  rights,  duties, 
and  obligations.  The  conscience  of  the  law  looks 
well  to  the  value  of  its  consideration.  Then  there  is 
the  moral  obligation  of  its  acceptance,  or  its  protest 
for  non-acceptance,  if  a  bill  of  exchange.  There  is 
punishment  for  its  forgery,  and  help  in  the  event  of 
its  loss.  If  one  receive  a  little  package  to  carry  for 
hire,  instantly  that  act  is  covered  by  many  laws  look- 
ing to  the  rights  of  owners  and  the  responsibility  of 
the  carrier.  If  you  speak  of  another's  fair  fame,  law 
warns  you  to  guard  your  lips.  If  you  build  a  house, 
the  law  makes  it  your  castle,  gives  you  certain  rights 
of  defense.  Laws  forbidding  burglary  and  arson  at 
once  come  to  protect  it. 

There  is  a  point  of  unity  in  all  this  in  Will.  The 
intention  to  go  on  and  out  of  itself,  is  seen  in  an  atom 
of  matter  and  in  a  principle  of  morals.  Each  is 
instinct  with  the  desire,  so  to  speak,  and  is  distin- 
guished by  the  act,  of  imparting  or  giving  itself 
away  to  something  else.  An  atom  is  not  an  orphan, 
or  friendless,  or  without  the  sympathy  of  other 
atoms.  As  the  acorn  produces  many  oaks,  the  foun- 
tain produces  many  streams,  the  sun  gives  out  many 
rays,  and  from  ancestors  descend  many  heirs,  so  no 


Unity  is  not  Oneness.  1 1 1 

right  is  solitary  or  barren  ;  but  rights  beget  rights, 
and  duties  beget  duties.  The  law  of  ownership 
begets  the  law  against  trespass  and  against  larceny. 
As  no  atom  can  be  an  outlaw,  so  law  is  multiplied  as 
relations  are  multiplied.  Indeed,  the  law  of  a  thing 
is  inseparable  in  the  thing  itself.  As  the  universe  is 
filled  with  things,  so  is  it  filled  with  law.  Are  not 
all  these  laws  one,  if  their  idea  be  one  ? 

But  still  more  do  the  principles  of  material  science 
show  their  identity  with  moral  principles  in  Will,  is 
the  fact  and  law  of  aggregation.  We  mean  by 
aggregation,  not  the  importance  of  many  things 
abstractly  by  themselves,  but  the  concrete  import- 
ance of  one  thing  as  related  to  every  other  thing.  In 
the  material  world  every  atom  is  a  help  to  every  other 
atom.  Things  are  different ;  but  they  are  dependent. 
Concord  includes  discords.  There  must  be  contrasts, 
as  well  as  analogies.  In  colors,  the  mind  could  not 
endure  monotony.  Suppose  there  were  but  one 
color  —  everything  were  blue,  yellow,  or  red  —  the 
universe  would  be  intolerable.  So  in  forms,  the 
more  varieties,  the  more  individualities,  the  more 
pleasure  we  derive  therefrom. 

This  is  not  a  movement  of  antipathy,  but  of  sym- 
pathy ;  not  of  aristocracy,  but  of  fraternity ;  not  of 
affinity,  but  of  association.  In  integration,  things 
are  both  related,  combined  and  assimilated.  In 
aggregation  there  is  relation  and  mutual  help.  In 
material  aggregation,  like  things  go  to  like.  Similis 
simili  gandet.  The  law  here  is  sympathy,  not  affinity. 
The  result  is  association,  not  a  compound.  Things 
are  together,  not  one.  It  is  not  integration,  but 
aggregation  ;  not  oneness,  but  unity.     Antipathy  for- 


1 1  2        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

bids  like  things  to  become  one  with  unlike.  The 
dove  flies  from  the  hawk;  men  and  vipers  cannot 
sleep  in  the  same  bed.  The  wind  lifts  the  chaff  into 
a  cloud  by  itself,  and  leaves  the  wheat  in  a  mass  by 
itself.  Species  stay  with  species,  and  genus  with 
genus.  When  unlike  things  attract  each  other,  as 
oxygen  and  hydrogen,  by  the  creative  or  integrating 
law  of  chemical  affinity,  they  drop  their  individuality 
and  become  something  else.  In  aggregation,  every 
individual  is  distinct  and  separate  in  character,  but 
joined  in  purpose  with  something  else. 

The  importance  of  any  one  law  is  seen  in  the  con- 
fusion that  would  result  if  other  laws  did  not  exist. 
If  laws  arise,  they  must  be  interpreted  and  executed. 
Each  department  is  dependent  on  the  other.  The 
executive  is  useless  without  the  legislative,  and  the 
legislative  without  the  executive.  It  is  useless  to 
declare  a  right  unless  it  be  protected  and  enforced. 
The  law  of  propriety  necessitates  the  law  of  penal- 
ties. The  declaratory  and  the  vindicatory  are  mutu- 
ally dependent  on  each  other. 

The  point  of  unity  seen  between  material  and 
moral  aggregation  is  in  the  fact  of  universal  depend- 
ence and  the  law  of  universal  help.  Everything,  as 
we  have  said,  depends  upon  every  other  thing,  atom 
upon  atom,  principle  on  principle,  and  all  on  some- 
thing beyond  them.  Each  link  of  the  chain  that 
hangs  must  hang  from  the  same  thing.  If  every- 
thing is  under  any  one  thing,  in  that  one  thing  is 
unity.  Helpfulness  is  omnipresent  in  matter,  and 
helpfulness  is  omnipresent  in  mind  and  morals,  and 
in  the  omnipresence  of  helpfulness  is  the  unity  of 
material  and  moral  laws. 


LECTURE  III. 


METHOD    OF   CREATION. 

The  first  lecture,  after  having  proved  supernatural 
Power,  as  is  claimed,  spoke  of  its  manifestations  as 
creative,  causative  and  derivative.  Causative  and 
derivative  manifestations  were  then  considered  ;  we 
now  come  to  the  method  of  creative  manifestations. 
Let  us  begin  with 

I.  The  first  atom  or  inorganic  nature.  What  is  crea- 
tion ?  That  is  uncreated  which  has  always  been,  and 
that  is  created  which  has  not  always  been.  The  cre- 
ative method  is,  therefore,  a  way  or  method  of  new- 
ness ;  and,  in  inorganic  nature,  it  is  seen  in  the  first 
atom.  The  first  atom  is  the  crucial  test  of  philosoph- 
ical systems.  Whence  is  this  first  atom  ?  The  first 
unexplained  atom  is  the  throne  of  a  personal  God, 
and  the  grave  of  an  impersonal  evolution.  However 
much  aside  skeptical  science  may  engage  the  atten- 
tion of  reason,  reason  demands  that  science  shall 
come  back  and  account  for  the  first  atom,  or  be  silent 
when  religion  gives  the  answers  that  science  cannot. 
As  to  this,  reason  will  not  tolerate  the  least  evasion, 
equivocation,  or  omission.  Skeptical  science  must 
begin  at  the  beginning.  The  first  atom  !  whence 
is  it? 


1 1 4       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

Evolution,  as  a  mere  method  of  integrating  matter, 
assumes  the  existence  of  matter,  and  does  not  open 
the  question  of  its  origin.  But  when  Mr.  Spencer 
announced  evolution  as  eternal  and  universal,  exclud- 
ing the  action  of  will  and  the  work  of  creation,  he 
antagonized  the  theistic  philosophy,  and  the  basis  of 
all  religion.  Evolution  as  a  mere  method  of  Power, 
leaving  to  religion  the  deification  of  that  power  as  a 
personal  Being,  was  a  harmless  theory.  But  inten- 
tionally or  unintentionally,  Mr.  Spencer  attacks  the 
very  basis  of  religion,  when  he  so  impersonalizes 
Power  as  to  leave  to  religion  nothing  to  worship. 
For  a  person  to  worship  a  thing  is  debasing  fetich- 
ism.  The  creative  method  of  supernatural  will  is  a 
way  of  newness — of  originality — of  production.'  Di- 
rect creation  is  of  kinds  or  types  ;  indirect  or  genetic 
creation  is  of  individuals. 

Mr.  Spencer  says :  "  A  Power  of  which  the  nature 
remains  forever  inconceivable,  and  to  which  no  limits 
in  time  or  space  can  be  imagined,  works  in  us  certain 
effects"  (F.  P.,  §  194).  Again,  "All  things  are  man- 
ifestations of  a  Power  that  transcends  our  knowl- 
edge "  (lb.  §28).  We  have  seen  that  the  elastic  word 
manifestation  covers  the  ideas  of  causation  and  deri- 
vation, and  we  now  proceed  to  show  that  its  meaning- 
is  that  of  creation.  Power  and  its  manifestations  are 
not  two  infinities.  For  Mr.  Spencer  asks,  "  How 
self-destructive  is  the  assumption  of  two  or  more 
Infinities,  is  manifest  on  remembering  that  such  In- 
finities, by  limiting  each  other,  would  become  finite" 
(F.  P.,  §  24J.  But  while  we  have  not  two  Infinites, 
we  do  have  one  Power  unlimited  in  time  and  space, 


All  is  Created  that  is  not  Eternal         1 15 

with  limited  manifestations.  We  start  with  Power. 
Power  is  not  its  manifestation,  nor  is  manifestation 
Power ;  but  as  the  spider  spins  its  web  from  itself,  so 
supernatural  Power  manifests  nature  from  itself.  The 
first  manifestation  of  Power  was  the  first  creation  by 
Power  of  unlike  from  unlike.  If  Power  is  eternal, 
the  manifestations  of  Power  are  not  eternal.  If  the 
manifestations  of  Power  are  not  eternal,  shall  we  call 
them  creations  or  evolutions?  Theists  call  them  the 
creations  of  a  personal  Being;  atheists  or  agnostics 
call  them  the  evolutions  of  impersonal  Power.  But 
they  are  one  or  the  other.  How  shall  we  decide 
which?  Mr.  Spencer  says  "the  affirmation  of  uni- 
versal evolution  is,  in  itself,  the  negation  of  the  abso- 
lute commencement  of  anything."  "  The  absolute 
commencement  of  organic  life  on  the  globe,  *  *  * 
I  distinctly  deny"  (1  Bio.,  4S2).  A  commencement 
is  all  that  is  claimed,  whether  it  be  called  absolute  or 
relative.  Mr.  Spencer  asks,  "  Is  it  supposed  that  a 
new  organism  when  specially  created,  is  created  out 
of  nothing?  If  so,  there  is  a  supposed  creation  of 
matter ;  and  the  creation  of  matter  is  inconceivable 
(1  Biol.,  §112).  Of  course,  in  this  as  well  as  else- 
where. Mr.  Spencer  is  planted  directly  against  crea- 
tion. But  what  is  creation  ?  Power  is  admitted,  and 
its  manifestations  are  admitted.  If  manifestations 
are  not  eternal  as  eternal  Power,  then  they  are  com- 
menced. According  to  Mr.  Spencer,  "  evolution  is 
always  to  be  regarded  as  fundamentally  an  integra- 
tion of  matter  and  dissipation  of  motion."  This  in- 
tegration is  either  of  inorganic  matter,  or  of  organic 
matter.    The  evoluion  of  inorganic  matter,  Mr.  Spen- 


1 1 6       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

cer  passes  without  formal  discussion.  He  says,  pa- 
renthetically, in  his  preface  to  his  treatise  on  First 
Principles,  "  in  logical  order  should  here  come  the 
application  of  these  First  Principles  to  Inorganic 
Nature.  But  this  great  division  it  is  proposed  to 
pass  over  ;  partly  because  even  without  it,  the  scheme 
is  too  extensive ;  and  partly  because  the  interpreta- 
tion of  organic  nature,  after  the  proposed  method,  is 
of  more  importance.''  This  is,  indeed,  a  vast  and  in- 
excusable leap  ;  but  thus  to  decapitate  evolution,  is 
to  take  the  brains  with  its  head.  Mr.  Spencer  dis- 
cusses organic  nature,  denying  that  he  is  compelled 
to  assume  a  first  organism  ;  and  in  passing  over  in- 
organic nature,  he  escapes  the  necessity  to  account  for 
a  first  atom.  Certain  it  is,  that  in  leaping  over  inor- 
ganic to  organic  nature,  he  assumes  the  existence  of 
the  inorganic  nature  when  he  makes  it  a  basis  of 
organic  nature.  A  material  atom  is  a  fact,  though 
hypothetical,  and  the  question  is,  who  is  its  factor? 
In  passing  over  the  inorganic,  Mr.  Spencer  ignores 
the  philosophical  key  of  the  philosophical  arch. 

Agnostic  or  atheistic  evolution  begins  at  the 
organic ;  but  in  accounting  for  that,  it  accounts  for 
nothing  else  ;  but  theistic  evolution  begins  far  back  at 
the  inorganic,  and  in  accounting  for  that  it  accounts 
for  all  else.  The  Power  that  manifests  an  atom, 
manifests  the  universe.  He  ignores  a  personal  Crea- 
tor in  admitting  an  impersonal  Power;  and  in  mani- 
festing some  of  the  organic  manifestations,  he  passes 
over,  as  of  less  importance,  the  origin  of  the  inor- 
ganic on  which  the  organic  rests.  We  propose  to 
go  from  where  Mr.  Spencer  begins  in  the  organic 


The  Organic  Rests  on  the  Inorganic.       1 1  7 

back  to  the  inorganic  on  which  the  organic  rests 
His  system  of  philosophy  is  like  a  house  with  an 
unknown  foundation.  He  denies  that  he  is  a  materi- 
alist, and  yet  he  has  built  on  inorganic  matter  and 
impersonal  Power,  for  which  he  has  not  accounted. 
Agnostic  science  assumes,  unless  its  eternity  be  as- 
sumed, that  Power  manifesting  all  things  is  imper- 
sonal. Mr.  Spencer,  in  passing  over  unknowable 
matter  in  inorganic  nature,  cannot  suppress  an  inquiry 
as  to  the  Unknown  Power  behind  the  Unknown  Real- 
ity of  the  symbol  of  matter.  If  the  organic  rests  on 
the  inorganic  (see  1  Biol.  §  14),  what  does  the  inor- 
ganic rest  on  ?  The  human  mind  will  not  consent 
that  Mr.  Spencer  may  begin  his  agnostic  philosophy 
where  he  pleases,  and  ignore,  as  less  important,  truths 
that  explode  its  conclusions.  Let  us  push  this  pseudo 
materialism  beyond  matter,  to  that  on  which  matter 
rests.  Mr.  Spencer  says  that  there  is  no  matter,  but 
that  which  we  call  matter  is  only  a  symbol  of  some 
Unknowable  Reality.  What  is  that?  It  is  said  to 
be  impersonal  and  unintelligent ;  and  right  here  is 
the  issue.  To  know  what  this  Unknowable  Reality 
is,  it  would  be  more  fundamental  in  that  which  aspires 
to  be  a  philosophy,  to  go  back  from  the  line  of  causes 
in  later  phenomena  as  seen  in  organic  nature  to  the 
First  Cause  in  which  they  all  began,  beyond  inorganic 
nature.  We  cannot  understand  secondary  causes  so 
long  as  we  are  utterly  ignorant  of  the  Cause  of  causes. 
It  is  not  sufficient  for  this  agnostic  evolution  to  begin 
arbitrarily  at  the  organic,  and  say  that  its  foundation 
is  the  inorganic.  True  philosophy  seeks  to  know 
what  is  the  foundation  of  the  foundation.     Religion 


1 1 8        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

says  to  evolutionists  you  have  admitted  a  Power 
unlimited  in  time  and  space ;  and  it  claims,  from  human 
personality,  to  have  proved  superhuman  personality. 
The  demand,  therefore,  will  not  be  silenced,  that  evo- 
lutionists shall  admit  or  deny  the  connection  between 
this  supernatural  Power  and  inorganic  nature,  as 
well  as  with  organic.  Religion  devoutly  kneels 
before  the  Power  in  both  organic  and  inorganic  evo- 
lution ;  while  science,  as  just  said,  keeps  in  view  only 
the  method  of  organic  evolution,  and  ignores  the 
method  of  inorganic  origin  and  the  Power  behind 
both. 

The  creative  principles  necessary  to  inorganic  evo- 
lution apply  to  organic  evolution,  but  the  genetic 
principles  of  organic  evolution  do  not.  apply  to  inor- 
ganic evolution.  It  is  only  when  Power  has  objecti- 
fied itself  in  not  only  inorganic  substance,  but  in 
organisms  built  on  that  substance,  that  formal  consid- 
eration, certainly  of  organic  evolution,  begins.  It  is 
in  the  presence  of  life  in  organic  evolution,  for  which 
the  integration  of  matter  and  the  dissipation  of 
motion  do  not  account,  that  evolution,  seems  only 
the  equivalent  of  growth,  and  not  at  all  like  inorganic 
evolution ;  if  such  there  be. 

It  was  a  method  of  Will-Power  that  manifestations 
should  be  new,  whether  by  what  is  called  creation  or 
evolution  ;  it  was  a  method  to  continue  types  ;  it  was 
a  method  that  things  and  forces  should  be  exchanged 
or  correlated. 

The  elements,  the  seasons,  the  universe  of  worlds 
and  systems  of  worlds  manifest  the  phenomenal  ener- 
gies of    this  omnipresent  Power.      Manifestation  is 


Manifestations  have  a  Chronology.         119 

the  word  that  covers  all  ideas  of  this  activity,  whether 
manifestation  means  creation,  causation,  derivation, 
correlation,  generation  or  evolution.  This  power 
goes  forth  in  some  way.  There  is  a  manifestation 
that  is  creation. 

Have  the  creative  manifestations  of  supernatural 
Will-Power  a  chronology  ?  The  time  consumed  in 
supernatural  manifestations  is  not  prescribed.  God 
is  not  slack  as  some  men  count  slackness.  With  him 
one  day  is  as  a  thousand  years  and  a  thousand  years 
is  as  one  day.  As  the  era  of  supernatural  Power  is 
eternal,  it  keeps  no  record  of  time  or  of  progress 
definite  to  man.  To  itself,  eternity  is  one  eternal 
Now.  The  human  cannot  chronologize  the  super- 
human or  the  natural  the  supernatural.  As  there  is 
no  time  in  eternity  so  there  is  no  date  to  the  eternal 
in  the  manifestations  of  the  eternal. 

It  is  said  that  "  It  is  almost  an  absolute  and  de- 
monstrable certainty  that  the  human  race  appeared  on 
the  earth  long  periods  before  there  was  any  such 
chronology  as  the  church  has  hitherto  held."  Noth- 
ing in  science  is  more  dogmatic  than  this.  A  few 
scientists  hold  up  the  little  light  they  have  to  the 
scarp  of  hills  heaved  from  the  depths  below,  and  say, 
as  this  mass  has  been  forming  so  many  years,  there- 
fore the  whole  earth  has  been  so  many  untold  ages 
in  its  formation.  All  such  calculations  seem  to  be 
uncertain  if  you  admit  the  instantaneous  revolutions 
of  catastrophies  as  factors.  Shall  we  adopt  the  Uni- 
formity or  the  Catastrophic  theory  of  the  Cosmos  ? 
It  is  not  important  that  we  fix  upon  any  period  as  the 
age  of  the  world.     The  Bible  says  that  "  in  the  begin- 


i  20       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

ning  God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth,"  but 
does  not  say  when  that  beginning  was..  It  has  been 
said  that  the  "  chronology  based  upon  the  Sacred 
Scriptures,  is  acknowledged  by  the  very  men  who 
made  it  to  be  uncertain."  But  is  the  chronology  based 
upon  science  any  more  certain  ?  The  chronology  of 
the  Bible  and  of  science  are  both  equally  uncertain. 
The  point  made  here  is,  that  the  uncertain  chronology 
of  science  shall  not  be  used,  in  proving  the  chronol- 
ogy of  the  Bible  to  be  uncertain,  to  prove  that  the 
Bible  itself  is  therefore  untrue.  It  is  merely  human 
opinion  as  to  how  old  the  world  is,  whether  the  cal- 
culation be  made  from  the  facts  of  the  Bible  or  the 
facts  of  nature.  Some  few  scientists  rejoice  that 
they  have  destroyed  the  Bible  itself  because  they 
have  destroyed  a  chronology  which  the  Bible  does 
not  set  up.  God  made  the  Bible,  and  man  has  read 
into  it  a  chronology  which  God  did  not  put  into  it. 

But  the  material  phenomena  around  us  show  the 
work  of  ages,  and  the  work  of  special  moments.  We 
see  the  work  of  ages  in  the  uniformity  of  the  rocky 
formations ;  and  we  see  the  catastrophic  work  of 
dreadful  moments,  when  the  hills  heaved  up,  the  val- 
leys dropped  down,  and  the  shallow  waters  gathered 
into  deep  seas.  The  catastrophic  evidences  of  these 
great  instantaneous  convulsions,  impress  us  more  than 
all  other  facts  in  nature.  That  is,  the  fast  movements 
of  nature  tell  us  more  than  the  slow  movements  of 
nature.  When  we  stand  by  the  ocean  shore  and  look 
off  into  its  inscrutable  depths,  and  remember  that 
they  were  formed  by  one  exertion  of  awful  power,  or 
stand  upon  the  sublime  summit  of  heaven-reaching 


Force  a  Name  for  Power.  121 

mountains,  and  remember  that  in  one  instant  of 
omnific  energy,  they  arose  as  thrones  of  the  Infi- 
nite, we  see  that  nature  does  not  always  take  eons  of 
time  to  do  her  grandest  work.  We  see  how  idle  it  is 
to  assume  that  what  we  see  was  necessarily  the  slow 
work  of  Power.  We  see  not  only  that  nature  can 
work  prodigiously  fast,  but  that  she  actually  has 
worked  prodigiously  fast.  All  the  proof  we  have,  is 
of  nature's  fast  work  ;  while  we  have  only  conjecture 
that  she  has  worked  in  the  slow  uniformity  of  ages. 
A  few  months  only  intervene  between  snow  and 
flowers,  between  seed-time  and  harvest,  between 
birth  and  burial.  Think  of  the  rapidity  with  which 
nature  moves  !  Though  we  seem  to  stand  still,  yet, 
during  the  hour  we  shall,  by  revolution  of  the  earth, 
be  a  thousand  miles  away  from  the  point  in  space 
where  we  were  when  we  entered  this  house;  and,  in 
our  orbit  around  the  sun,  we  shall  be  68,000  miles 
away  from  where  we  were  when  we  entered  it.  We 
move  nineteen  miles  at  every  tick  of  the  clock.  The 
earth  has  to  make,  in  one  year,  a  distance  of  545,000,- 
000  of  miles.  Sound  travels  over  a  thousand  feet 
each  second.  Light  flies  190,000  miles  a  second. 
Nature  needs  no  million  of  ages  to  make  so  small  an 
affair  as  this  earth,  unless  she  worked  infinitely  slower 
in  the  past  than  we  know  she  works  in  the  present 
(see  F.  P.,  §  17).  Science  must  deny  its  own  facts  in 
order  to  deny  the  Bible  account  of  creation. 

If  we  start  with  Power,  force  must  be  another 
name  for  that  Power  itself,  or  force  must  be  a  crea- 
tion of  that  power.  We  agree  with  the  remark  of 
Sir  John   F.  W.  Herschell,  before  quoted,  that  "  in 


122        The  Philosophy  of  the  Super  nahiral. 

the  only  case  in  which  we  are  admitted  into  personal 
knowledge  of  the  origin  of  force,  we  find  it  connected 
with  volition,  and  by  inevitable  consequence,  with 
motive  and  intellect,  and  with  all  those  attributes  of 
mind  in  which  personality  consists."  We  start  with 
Will.  Will  is  force,  force  or  Will  is  Power.  From 
the  consciousness  of  our  own  human  will-power  and 
its  methods,  we  must  infer  a  superhuman  will-power 
and  its  methods.  We  have  seen  that  the  Power  is 
one ;  we  shall  now  see  that  the  methods  are  many. 

Personal,  supernatural  Power  may  manifest  itself 
without  means,  ex  mcro  motu,  as  seen  in  sporadic  acts 
of  Power  called  miracles  and  providence  ;  or  Power 
may  prescribe  to  itself  methods  of  means  as  seen  in 
the  method  we  are  to  discuss. 

The  method  is  either  creative,  as  seen  primarily  in 
the  atom  of  inorganic  nature,  where  matter  is  begun  ; 
and  in  the  first  organism  of  organic  nature ;  or  the 
method  is  causative,  as  seen  in  inorganic  relations 
where  the  elements  of  nature  are  combined  or  ex- 
changed ;  or  the  method  is  derivative  or  genetic,  as 
seen  primarily  in  organic  nature,  where  kind  propa- 
gates its  kind.  Either  method  is  as  supernatural  as 
its  Power. 

Mr.  Spencer  says  that  "  we  are  obliged  to  regard 
every  phenomenon  as  a  manifestation  of  some  Power 
by  which  we  are  acted  upon  "  (F.  P.,  §  27).  But  how 
does  manifestation  differ  from  creation  ?  Does  Power 
evolve  itself,  and  from  itself  manifest  or  produce 
things  not  itself,  as  the  spider  does  its  web  ?  That 
is,  are  these  manifestations  of  Power  its  intrinsic 
transformations   or    its    extrinsic    creations?     Does 


Denial  Proves  Nothing.  1 2 


j 


manifestation  mean  transformation,  transubstantia- 
tion,  transmutation,  metamorphosis?  Does  manifest- 
ation imply  that  supernature  naturalizes  itself,  or 
that  the  subject  objectifies  itself,  or  that  infinite  mind 
finitely  contracts  itself,  or  that  the  Creator  creates 
outside  himself  that  which  the  Creator  himself  is  not? 

Materialists  teach  the  eternity  of  matter,  and  of 
course  deny  its  creation  ;  because,  they  say,  that 
something  cannot  be  created  out  of  nothing.  Nothing, 
in  the  sense  of  negation,  can  produce  nothing.  What- 
ever else  may  or  may  not  be  eternal,  all  admit  that 
Power  is  eternal.  Even  if  Power  and  matter  be  co- 
eternal,  and  concomitant.  Power  controls  matter; 
and,  if  Power  controls  matter,  must  it  not  have  pro- 
duced it?  and  is  it  not  reasonable  to  conclude  that 
such  a  superior  as  Power  must  have  produced  such 
an  inferior  as  matter?  Indeed,  Mr.  Spencer  admits 
this  in  saying,  that  "  we  are  obliged  to  regard  every 
phenomenon  as  a  manifestation  of  some  Power." 
This  seems  to  amount  either  to  impersonal  Panthe- 
ism, in  which  all  is  an  impersonal  God  or  to  admit 
creation,  in  which  a  personal  God  creates  all  things. 

An  incomprehensibility  is  not  solved  by  its  denial 
or  by  the  affirmation  of  another  incomprehensibility. 
To  say  that  something  cannot  be  made  out  of  nothing, 
does  not  prove  the  eternity  of  matter.  Both  are 
alike  incomprehensible.  We  cannot  conceive  of 
the  eternity  of  matter,  and  yet  Mr.  Spencer  says, 
speaking  of  special  creations,  "  It  is  supposed  that  a 
new  organism,  when  specially  created,  is  created  out 
of  nothing?  If  so,  there  is  a  supposed  creation  of 
matter;  and  the  creation  of  matter  is  inconceivable — 


1 24       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

implies  the  establishment  of  a  relation  in  thought  be- 
tween nothing  and  something — a  relation  of  which 
one  term  is  absent — an  impossible  relation."  "  The 
creation  of  force  is  just  as  inconceivable  as  the  crea- 
tion of  matter  "  (i  Biol.,  §  112).  Again  he  says,  "  All 
things  are  manifestations  of  a  Power  that  transcends 
our  knowledge  and  that  which  is  not  one  is  the 
other  "  (F.  P.,  §  28). 

As  said  before,  the  uncreated,  as  the  eternal,  is  that 
which  has  always  been  ;  the  created  is  that  which  has 
not  always  been.  Power  has  always  been  and  is 
therefore  uncreated.  The  manifestations  of  Power 
have  not  been  always  and  are  therefore  creations. 
Matter  is  a  manifestation  of  Power,  or  it  is  Power ; 
but  if  matter  is  Power,  then  what  is  Power;  if 
Power  is  matter,  then  what  is  matter?  But  as  unlim- 
ited Power  is  infinite,  and  as  there  cannot  be  two 
infinities  (F.  P.,  §  24),  so  either  matter  is  Power,  or 
matter  is  finite,  and  if  finite  it  is  created.  The  doc- 
trine is  not  that  something  was  not  made  out  of 
nothing ;  but  when  there  was  nothing  but  Being, 
something  was  made.  It  is  impossible  to  conceive  of 
the  eternity  either  of  impersonal  matter,  or  of  a  per- 
sonal God.  The  eternal — the  Absolute — the  Infinite 
— is  the  incomprehensible.  We  can  know  nothing 
about  the  eternity  or  the  creation  of  matter;  but  lit- 
tle as  to  the  personality  or  impersonality  of  Power; 
nor  can  we  know  any  more  as  to  what  cause  is,  what 
law  is,  or  what  nature  is.  At  best  we  see  as  through 
a  glass,  darkly,  and  know  that  there  is  an  eternal 
Being.  Where  no  opinion  can  be  absolutely  certain, 
we  must  take  that  view  which  leads  to  the  best  life> 


Two  Infinites  Impossible.  125 

and  .the  most  hopeful  death.  We  think  that  a  belief 
in  a  personal  God  does  this.  How  God  is  an  omni- 
present person — how  intelligence  and  will  can  be 
omnipresent — how  God  created  matter  when  there 
was  nothing,  or  transformed  himself  into  matter — all 
this  is  utterly  incomprehensible.  But  to  set  up  mat- 
ter and  deny  God,  does  not  solve  the  mystery.  The 
eternity  of  matter  and  the  denial  of  God  are  as  great 
a  mystery  as  the  eternity  of  God  and  the  creation  of 
matter.  As  there  cannot  be  two  infinities,  if  matter 
is  eternal,  God  is  not  at  all ;  if  God  is  at  all,  matter 
cannot  be  eternal. 

We  cannot,  indeed,  conceive  of  the  creation  of  or 
of  the  evolution  of  something  out  of  nothing  ;  but  can 
we  say  that  there  is  nothing  where  there  is  Power  ? 
Power  must  be  something,  or  all  manifestations  of 
Power  would  be  manifestations  of  something:  by 
nothing  out  of  nothing,  and  this  manifestation  no  less 
in  evolution  than  in  creation ;  that  is,  there  is  no 
more  incomprehensibility  in  saying  that  something- 
was  created  out  of  nothing,  than  in  saying  that  some- 
thing was  evolved  out  of  nothing.  But,  as  Power  is 
something,  in  denying  the  eternity  of  matter,  we  do 
not  affirm  that  it  is  produced  out  of  nothing  when 
we  say  that  it  was  produced  out  of  Power.  Matter 
interprets  Power,  and  matter  is  a  substance  from 
Power.  Does  Power  create  matter  by  becoming 
matter?  that  is,  is  not  the  Power  to  create  matter  the 
Power  to  be  matter  itself?  and  the  reverse. 

In  materialism,  philosophy  starts  from  the  doctrine 
of  eternal  matter;  in  idealism,  it  starts  from  the  de- 
nial of  matter ;  in  theism,  it  starts  from  the  belief  in 


126        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

an  eternal  person.  The  worship  of  eternal  Power  in 
an  eternal  Person,  is  religion.  Everything  according 
to  evolution  is  the  metamorphosis  of  personal  or  im- 
personal Power.  When  a  certain  manifestation  of 
Power  is  present,  we  call  it  life ;  when  there  is  no 
manifestation  of  the  same  Power,  we  call  it  death. 
That  which  is  called  cause  does  not  produce  that 
which  is  called  effect ;  but  both  cause  and  effect  are 
threaded,  like  beads,  on  the  string  of  Power. 

Continuity  as  a  method  of  Power  pertains  only  to 
the  past  and  present,  but  not  necessarily  to  the  future  ; 
and  is  not  between  cause  and  effect,  as  such  ;  but 
future  continuity  is  in  the  persistence  of  the  admitted 
Power  by  which  the  cause  is  cause,  and  by  which  the 
effect  is  effect.  Cause  and  effect  are  but  names  given 
to  successive  phases,  or  phenomena  of  Power — nou- 
menal  Power.  Cause  is  an  energy  of  Power  and 
effect  is  a  result  of  Power.  In  a  word,  unthinkable 
Power  produces  thinkable  things.  A  thing  is  that 
which  is  thinkable,  and  //^thing  is,  not  the  non-exist- 
ent, but  merely  that  abstract  existence,  which  is  un- 
thinkable. Think  and  thing  are  radically  the  same 
word,  the  verb  ending  in  the  sharp  k,  and  the  noun 
ending  in  the  flat  g.  We  think  a  thing  in  the  same 
sense  as  we  dream  a  dream,  act  an  act,  or  do  a  deed. 
To  say  that  something  cannot  be  made  out  of  nothing, 
is  to  say  that  the  thinkable  cannot  be  made  out  of  the 
unthinkable ;  but  thinkable  something  is  from  un- 
thinkable Power. 

What  is  thinkable?  The  unthinkable,  in  the  sense 
of  the  non-existent,  cannot  be  represented  in  thought. 
Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  (F.  P.,  §  29)  says,  "  though  the 


Nothing  is  not  Thiiikable.  127 

law  of  gravitation  is  within  our  mental  grasp,  it  is 
impossible  to  realize  in  thought  the  force  of  gravita- 
tion. *  *  *  In  grouping  particular  relations  of 
phenomena  under  laws,  and  these  special  laws  under 
laws  more  and  more  general,  is  of  necessity  a  progress 
to  causes  that  are  more  and  more  abstract,  and  causes 
more  and  more  abstract  are  of  necessity  causes  less 
and  less  conceivable ;  since  the  formation  of  an  ab- 
stract conception  involves  the  dropping  of  certain 
concrete  elements  of  thought.  Hence  the  most  ab- 
stract  conception,  to  which  science  is  ever  slowly 
approaching,  is  one  that  merges  into  the  inconceiva- 
ble or  unthinkable."  If  the  inconceivable  or  unthink- 
able is  nothing  merely  because  it  is  unthinkable 
(which  point  of  the  unthinkable,  science  is  ever  slowly 
approaching),  science  is  ever  more  and  more  proving 
that  unthinkable  something  is  made  out  of  unthinkable 
nothing.  Is  force  «<?thing  because  inconceivable  or 
unthinkable  ?  We  may  not  be  able  to  grasp  in  thought 
what  we  can  logically  prove  to  exist.  Realities  are 
none  the  less  realities  because  incomprehensible  or 
unthinkable ;  nearly  all  realities  are  incomprehensi- 
ble. If  all  ultimates  are  nothing  because  unthinkable, 
as  everything  is  made  out  of  ultimates,  so  everything 
is  made  out  of  nothing.  All  modern  thinkers  admit 
the  omnipresence  of  Power — parturient  Power — man- 
ifested Power — inconceivable  Power.  But  is  Power 
nothing  because  inconceivable  or  unthinkable  ?  If 
Power  is  a  name  of  the  negation  called  nothing,  then 
all  evolution  of  Power  is  something  developed  out  of 
nothing, — in  a  word,  that  the  thinkable  something, 
called    facts,    are    made    out  of    unthinkable    Power 


128       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

called  nothing  because  unthinkable.  But,  if  Power, 
though  inconceivable  or  unthinkable,  is  something, 
then,  as  things  are  things,  there  are  things  thinkable 
and  things  unthinkable — things  material  and  things 
immaterial — and  things  material  are  made  out  of 
things  immaterial — tangible  things  out  of  intangible 
Power. 

Mr.  Spencer  denies  both  the  eternity  of  matter  and 
the  commencement  of  matter.  In  a  communication 
in  reply  to  a  critic,  written  for  the  North  American 
Review,  dated  London,  December  5,  1868,  and  re-pub- 
lished in  an  appendix  to  the  first  volume  of  his  Biol- 
ogy, he  says:  "that,  however,  which  I  regard  as 
most  reprehensible  in  his  criticism  is  the  way  inVhich 
he  persists  in  representing  the  System  of  PhilosopJiy  I 
am  working  out  as  a  materialistic  system.  Already 
he  has  once  before  so  represented  it,  and  the  injustice 
of  so  representing  it  has  been  pointed  out.  He 
knows  that  I  have  repeatedly  and  emphatically 
asserted  that  our  conceptions  of  matter  and  motion 
are  but  symbols  of  an  Unknowable  Reality  ;  that  this 
reality  cannot  be  that  which  we  symbolize  it  to  be." 
{Italics  ours.)  If  we  understand  him,  that  which  we 
conceive  of  as  matter  is  not  matter,  but  only  a  sym- 
bol of  an  Unknowable  Reality.  Of  course  he  can 
be  no  materialist,  because  he  denies  the  very  exist- 
ence of  matter.  He  would  be  called  a  Potentialist, 
if  classified  at  all. 

What,  then,  is  this  system  of  philosophy  that  is 
neither  materialism,  nor  idealism,  nor  pantheism  ? 
As  Mr.  Spencer  says,  "the  problem  to  be  resolved  is 
a  problem  of  dynamics,"  he  has  given  the  name  of 


Power  is  its  own  Me  astir  e.  129 

Power  to  this  Unknowable  Reality  behind  the  symbol 
of  matter.  In  such  a  system  Power  as  Power  is 
neither  matter,  nor  mind,  nor  being;  but,  as  modes, 
Power  might  be,  as  it  would  seem,  either  or  neither 
or  both.  Power  is  its  own  measure.  Power  is  its 
own  interpreter.  Mr.  Spencer  does  not  say  whether 
this  Power  is  personal  or  impersonal. 

If  Mr.  S.  were  a  materialist,  he  would  believe  in 
the  eternity  of  matter ;  but,  though  he  does  not 
believe  in  the  eternity  of  matter,  he  does  not  believe 
in  its  creation  ;  for  that  would  be  the  commencement 
of  matter.  With  him  all  that  now  is,  is  all  that  ever 
has  been ;  and  that  ever  will  be,  is  all  that  now  is. 
According  to  his  theory,  there  could  be  no  such  com- 
mencement ;  for  he  says,  as  we  have  seen,  that  "  the 
affirmation  of  universal  evolution  is  in  itself  a  ne^a- 
tion  of  an  absolute  commencing  of  anything."  That 
which  has  never  commenced  and  is  not  eternal  when 
all  is  eternal,  is  not  at  all.  So,  as  matter  is  neither 
eternal  nor  has  a  commencement,  there  is  no  matter. 
And  yet,  he  everywhere  means  by  evolution  the  pro- 
cess which  is  always  an  integration  of  matter.  If 
Mr.  Spencer  does  not  mean  to  assume  matter,  when 
he  says  that  it  integrates,  he  must  go  back  and  show 
how  matter,  before  it  integrates,  came  to  be  matter 
at  all.  If  we  understand  Mr.  Spencer,  matter  and 
motion  are  but  symbols  of  an  Unknowable  Reality. 
Then,  evolution  is  an  integration  of  an  Unknowable 
Reality  with  the  concomitant  dissipation  of  another 
Unknowable  Reality.  We  know  that  this  Reality  is 
not  that  which  we  symbolize  it  to  be.  If  Power 
materializes,  and  evolution  is  the  integration  of  mat- 
9 


1 30       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 


ter,  the  evolution  is  the  integration  of  materialized 
Power — in  other  words,  matter  is  only  a  form  of 
Power. 

We  start  with  omnipresent,  formless  Power.  In 
some  way  we  must  get  from  Power  to  Form.  Om- 
nipotence is  parturient  of  all  forms  and  substances ; 
and  the  creation  of  something  out  of  nothing  is  no 
more  incomprehensible,  than  that  Power  should  ma- 
terialize itself,  or  that  matter  should  be  eternal,  or 
that  matter  should  mentalize  itself.  And,  yet,  some 
minds  to  whom  two  incomprehensibilities  are  equally 
difficult  can  bring  themselves  to  accept  one  incom- 
prehensibility and  reject  another.  And  yet  that 
matter  is  a  manifestation  of  Power,  is  more  thinkable 
than  the  eternity  of  matter. 

If  evolution  is  the  method  of  the  universe,  then  it 
covers  inorganic  atoms ;  which  must  be  creatively 
evolved,  ab  extra,  or  not  be  evolved  at  all ;  as  each 
atom  holds  its  own  Power.  One  atom  cannot  evolve 
or  manifest  another  atom.  If,  in  universal  evolution, 
there  is  no  absolute  commencement  of  anything, 
then  the  matter  to  be  integrated  in  evolution  is  eternal 
and  the  process  of  evolution  is  eternal— that  is,  there 
must  be  an  eternal  evolution,  by  eternal  Power,  of 
eternal  matter. 

Religionists  and  some  scientists  are  not  agreed  as 
to  the  manifestations  of  this  Power.  The  former 
contend  that  Power  commenced  or  created  things ; 
some  of  the  latter  contend  that  matter  is  eternal; 
others,  such  as  Mr.  Spencer,  contend  that  matter  was 
neither  eternal  nor  created,  but  that  there  has  been 
an  eternal  process  or  parturition— that  what  we  call 


Active  Power  is  Creation.  131 

matter  is  not  matter,  but  only  a  symbol  of  that  which 
has  ever  been  becoming  matter.  The  distinct  doc- 
trine of  those  who  believe  in  creation  is,  that  what  is 
now,  once  was  not.  The  distinct  doctrine  of  evolu 
tionists  is,  that  that  which  is,  has  ever  been  coming 
and  will  ever  be  going.  But  both  agree  in  this — that 
the  phenomena  which  are,  whether  by  direct  act  of 
personal  creation  or  by  the  eternal  process  of  imper- 
sonal evolution,  once  were  not,  and  if  they  once  were 
not,  we  say  they  must  be  new.  Thus,  as  the  new  is 
the  created,  the  ever-becoming  of  impersonal  evolu- 
tion is  ever  the  new  of  a  ceaseless  creation  of  per- 
sonal Power. 

We  do  not  ask  Power  how  it  manifested,  com- 
menced, made  or  created  things,  whether  out  of  itself 
or  out  of  nothing.  All-Power  knows  its  own  possi- 
bilities, so  to  speak,  and  can  do  all  things.  All  mani- 
festations of  Power,  as  they  are  new  in  the  universe, 
are  creations  in  the  universe,  whatever  we  call  these 
manifestations,  whether  evolution,  emanation,  crea- 
tion, metamorphosis  or  generation. 

Power  was  first,  and,  at  first,  Power  was  all.  The 
first  manifestation  of  Power  was  form.  The  first  form 
was  that  of  an  atom,  and  the  first  atom  was  the  first 
form.  Form  was  not  as  old  as  Power,  for  form  was 
a  manifestation  of  Power.  Eternal  manifestation  of 
eternal  Power  is  utterly  unthinkable.  The  first  man- 
ifestation of  Power  was  that  activity  of  Power 
called  creation.  It  was  called  creation  because  it 
commenced  phenomena.  Mr.  Spencer  denies  this 
commencement.  He  says  "the  affirmation  of  univer- 
sal evolution  is,  in  itself,  the  negation  of  the  absolute 


132        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

commencement  of  anything."  As  Mr.  Spencer  denies 
being  a  materialist,  he  denies  the  eternity  of  matter, 
and  as  he  denies  the  absolute  commencement  of  any- 
thing, whether  a  first  atom  or  a  first  organism,  he 
denies  the  creation  of  matter;  so  there  is  nothing 
left  for  him  but  to  believe  in  the  eternal  process — the 
ever  becoming  of  Heraclitus.  But  what  is  it  that  is 
ev.er  becoming  but  never  is?  According  to  such 
teaching,  as  there  is  no  matter  or  only  the  symbol  of 
matter,  Power  must  be  the  ever  becoming  of  itself. 
But  this  will  be  more  specially  discussed  in  the  lec- 
ture on  evolution.  But  if  Power  is  ever  becoming, 
and  never  becomes  matter,  it  must  be  because  Power 
either  cannot  or  will  not  become  matter.  To  say 
that  Power  will  not  is,  in  will,  to  admit  a  personal 
factor,  which  is  denied  ;  and  to  say  that  it  cannot,  is 
to  deny  that  it  is  Power,  as  affirmed.  We  therefore 
conclude  that  as  Power  is  Power,  it  can  materialize 
itself  as  matter,  or,  it  can  produce — manifest — create 
matter.  Power  is  manifested  as  direct  creation  in 
the  first  atom  and  in  the  first  organism  ;  and  as  indi- 
rect creation  in  the  second  or  inherited  organism. 

Right  here,  in  the  real  or  hypothetical  atom  of 
inorganic  nature,  is  the  battle  ground  of  religion  and 
science.  If  the  theory  of  evolution  is  to  give  us 
light  anywhere,  it  ought  to  give  it  here.  Does  evo- 
lution account  for  the  first  atom?  On  the  contrary, 
it  denies  that  there  was  a  first  atom.  Agnostic  if  not 
atheistic  evolutionists  cannot  admit  a  created  atom ; 
for  that  implies  a  creator.  As  they  hold  to  an  eter- 
nal Power,  they  deny  eternal  matter.  But  to  say 
that  matter  is  neither  created  nor  eternal  is  to  say, 


Power  is  First.  133 


that  while  eternal  Power  is  ever  becoming  matter, 
yet  matter  never  is — that  a  materializing  tendency  is 
all.  Thus  evolution,  like  a  blind  bat  flying  in  the 
dark  between  the  two  unknown  walls  of  the  inorganic 
and  the  organic,  finds  no  outlet.  Evolution,  defined 
as  the  integration  of  matter  and  the  dissipation  of 
motion,  confessedly  passes  over  the  inorganic  atom 
to  be  integrated,  and  does  not  prove  the  mental  and 
vital  force  in  organic  phenomena  to  which  it  is  com- 
pelled to  apply.  The  whole  theory  of  atheistic  evo^ 
lution  is  buried  in  an  unexplained  atom.  Tf  Power 
is  eternal,  and  all  things,  of  course  including  atoms, 
are  manifestations  of  this  Power,  then  nothing  but 
Power  can  be  eternal,  for  things  manifested  cannot 
be  as  old  as  the  manifesting  Power. 

Mr.  Spencer  says  "  a  Power  of  which  the  nature 
remains  forever  inconceivable  and  to  which  no  limits 
in  time  and  space  can  be  imagined,  works  in  us  cer- 
tain effects."  (F.  P.  §  194.)  His  expression  elsewhere 
is,  "  all  things  are  manifestations  of  a  Power  that 
transcends  our  knowledge."  (F.  P.  §  27.)  The  man- 
ifestions  of  this  Power  are  both  inorganic  nature,  and 
things  and  persons  with  life.  Creation  is  direct  when 
Power  produces  that  which  Power  is  not — as  the 
mould,  the  bullet ;  such  as  inorganic  things  or 
things  without  life — the  first  atom,  the  first  molecule, 
the  first  mass.  The  created  is  the  new — the  original. 
Things  are  eternal,  or  they  are  begun.  That  which 
is  not  one,  is  the  other.  But  Power  unlimited  in 
Time  and  Space  is  eternal,  and  never  began,  and  all 
that  is  not  eternal  Power,  when  eternal  Power  was 
all,  is  begun.     So,  then,  we  start  with   Power — Will- 


134        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

Power — personal  or  impersonal.  As  just  said,  Power 
was  first ;  and,  at  first,  Power  was  all.  What  could 
be  without  Power?  To  admit  eternal  Power  is  to 
admit  that  all  else  is  at  its  sufferance.  Whatever 
was  second  was  a  manifestation  of  the  first ;  and,  if 
the  first  was  supreme,  it  was  eternal,  and  the  second 
was  not  eternal ;  and  because  it  was  not  eternal,  it 
was  new  ;  and,  because  it  was  new,  it  was  created. 

Power  being  admitted  to  be  the  pons  et  origo  of  all 
things,  all  things  must  be  either  created  by  Power, 
caused  by  Power,  or  derived  from  Power.  If  all 
things  are  derived,  then  the  principle  of  like  from 
like  prevails ;  from  Power  only  Power  could  be 
derived,  conscious  human  beings  from  a  conscious 
Superhuman  Being,  and  impersonal  things  from  im- 
personal, trees  from  trees,  rocks  from  rocks,  beast 
from  beast.  But,  as  we  see,  all  manifestations  of 
Power  are  not  derivatives  of  like  from  like,  and  that 
Power  must  create  or  cause  all  manifestations  of 
Power  that  Power  is  not.  Derivation  is  for  organic 
nature,  and  for  the  organic  nature  only.  Inorganic 
nature  is  one  unsuspended  creation  or  the  result  ot 
causation. 

The  underived  is  that  which  never  commenced,  as 
the  derived  is  that  which  was  commenced.  To  com- 
mence things  is  to  create  them,  and  that  is  underived 
and  therefore  uncreated  which  has  always  been. 
That  is  created  which  has  not  always  been  ;  as  when 
Power  manifests  itself,  not  as  Power,  but  as  Form,  or 
as  anything  which  Power  is  not.  According  to  evo- 
lution, as  Power  only  is  eternal,  it  would  seem  to 
follow,    that    the    manifestation    of    eternal    Power, 


All  but  Power  is  New.  1 35 

whether  by  what  we  call  the  process  of  evolution  or 
by  what  we  call  the  method  of  creation,  cannot  be 
eternal.  Therefore,  the  manifestations  of  eternal 
Power  may  be  either  a  process  or  method  ;  yet,  all 
new  manifestations  are  logically  proved  to  be  methods 
of  creative  manifestations.  The  first  grain,  say  of 
wheat,  because  the  first  grain  of  wheat  was  something 
that  had  never  been  before,  was  manifested  creatively 
from  Power;  and  the  second  grain  of  wheat  was 
created  genetically  by  Power  from  the  first.  If  there 
is  no  absolute  commencement  of  anything,  then  there 
is  an  eternal  continuity  of  commencements;  for  the 
second  genetic  grain  of  wheat  proves  that  there  was 
a  first  created  grain.  The  methods  are  cumulative. 
The  creative  method  is  derived  from  underived 
Power;  and  the  genetic  method  is  derived  from  the 
created.  Everything  is  directly  or  indirectly  created 
but  uncreated  Power.  Creation  is  the  addition  of 
any  new  manifestation  of  unlimited  Power.  Power 
thus  unlimited  in  Time  and  Space,  manifests  the 
addition  of  material,  atomic  elements,  or  of  inor- 
ganic nature,  and  then  the  addition  of  organic  nature. 
Each  step  is  the  addition  of  a  new,  and  therefore  a 
creative  manifestation  of  original  Power.  At  all 
tunes,  all  but  Power  Is  new;  and,  therefore,  all  but  pozver 
is  created.  All  manifestations,  transformations,  trans- 
mutations, metamorphoses,  transubstantiations,  or 
causations  are  creations,  because  they  are  new  and  not 
eternal ;  for  nothing  eternal  is  new,  and  nothing  new 
is  eternal.  As  all  but  Power  is  unstable,  so  instability 
of  the  homogeneous  is  new  and,  therefore  a  creation. 
The  transformation    of    the    homogeneous   into   the 


136       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

heterogeneous  is  the  addition  of  a  new  and,  therefore, 
a  creative  manifestation  of  Power.  If  all  develop- 
ment is  evolution,  all  addition  is  creation. 

All  manifestation  is  a  creation,  not  an  emanation? 
What  is  the  difference?  Emanation,  as  the  word  im- 
plies, is  when  Power  (when  Power  was  all)  goes 
forth  from  itself  as  Power,  whether  that  Power  is 
called  Power,  force,  or  energy,  such  as  gravitation, 
chemic  affinity,  and  so  on.  Creation  is  when  Power 
does  not  go  forth  from  itself  as  Power,  but  when  it 
manifests  Form.  Force  is  nothing  new  to  Power,. 
for  it  is  Power  itself;  but  Form  is  new  to  Power,  for 
it  is  not  Power.  Power,  therefore,  creates  when  it 
manifests  anything  that  Power  is  not,  which  is,  there- 
fore, something  new  ;  and  while  only  omniscient  can 
interpret  omnipotence,  yet  it  is  certain  as  just  said 
that  All-Power  can  do  all  things. 

The  difference  between  creation,  causation,  and 
evolution  is,  that  in  inorganic  nature  the  first  is  a 
creation,  and  the  use  that  Power  as  force  makes  of 
that  creation,  is  causation  ;  and  in  organic  nature  the 
first  of  anything  is  a  creation  ;  the  second  of  the 
same  thing  is  a  derivative  or  generative  development 
from  the  first — or  rather,  evolution  as  defined,  or 
described,  is  the  process  of  culminative  creation  ; 
whether  of  the  origin  of  atoms,  the  relations  of  things, 
or  the  persistence  of  things.  If  all  things  are  mani- 
festations of  a  Power  that  transcends  our  knowledge, 
we  ask  again,  what  is  the  manifestation  ?  Manifesta- 
tion by  Power  is  not  the  Power  itself,  and  Power  is 
not  the  manifestation.  We  must  find  that  first  atom 
in  inorganic  nature,  in  the  creativeness  of  Power  or 


Genetic  Power  is  Creative  Power.  1 3  7 

in  the  eternity  of  all  atoms,  somewhere  in  eternal 
Power.  If  evolution  is  eternally  creative,  it  is  so  in 
the  passage  of  eternal  Power  into  eternal  atoms;  and 
the  passage  of  these  atoms  from  a  diffused  to  an 
aggregated  state,  is  culminative  evolution.  The  cre- 
ative evolution  of  the  atomic  matter  which  Mr.  Spen- 
cer does  not  define,  must  be  prior  to  that  correlative 
evolution  of  atomic  matter  which  he  does  not  define 
or  describe. 

Methods  of  uniformity  advancing  to  multiformity, 
include  all  the  facts  of  the  universe,  and  cover  lines 
of  nature  without  life,  and  lines  of  nature  with  life. 
We  have,  therefore,  two  methods  of  manifestation  ; 
one,  direct  in  either  the  creation  or  causation  of  all 
things,  with  and  without  life  ;  and  another  indirect,  in 
the  generation  or  delegated  creation  of  all  things 
with  life.  It  is  a  method  of  beginning  things,  and 
a  method  of  continuing  things.  A  drop  of  water 
illustrates  the  first,  and  a  mustard-seed  illustrates  the 
second.  Things  without  life  are  creatively  begun, 
and  creatively  continued,  and  causatively  combined. 
With  the  drop  of  water,  unable  to  repeat  itself, 
unbroken  existence  is  unbroken  creation.  Things 
with  life  are  creatively  begun  and  genetically  con- 
tinued. With  the  mustard  seed,  the  power  of  its 
direct  creation  remains  in  it  as  the  power  of  its  direct 
generation  ;  but  whatever  is  direct  generation  to 
nature,  is  indirect  creation  to  supernature.  Genetic 
power  is  creative  power,  delegative.  Natural  gene- 
ration is  supernatural  creation,  at  second  hand.  If 
the  maxim  of  human  law  —  qui  facit  per  alium,  facit 
per  se — what  one  does  by  another,   he  does  by   him- 


138        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

self — could  be  applied  to  superhuman  law,  God  him- 
self would  be  said  to  create  that  which  He  appoints 
and  empowers  another  to  generate.  Let  us  remem- 
ber that  we  speak  of  nature  as  the  method  of  super- 
nature. 

Things  without  life  are  extrinsically  created  ; 
things  with  life  are  intrinsically  generated.  Mind 
presides  ever  the  sphere  of  like  things  of  life,  where 
by  fixed  intelligence  in  lower  spheres  things  propa- 
gate things  like  themselves,  as  oaks  propagate  oaks, 
and  wheat  propagates  wheat.  But  in  the  sphere  of 
unlike  things  without  life,  such  as  oxygen  and  hy- 
drogen, all  depends  on  extrinsic  creation  by  free 
intelligence.  Oxygen  cannot  create  oxygen,  nor 
hydrogen  create  hydrogen,  nor  can  either  by  itself 
produce  anything  else.  Water  is  neither  one  gas 
nor  the  other,  but  a  creation  based  upon  both.  One 
drop  of  water  does  not  generate  another  drop  ;  but 
each  drop  is  an  original,  and  as  to  other  drops,  is  an 
underived  creation.  The  matter  of  the  universe  is  an 
ever-continuing  creation :  its  redistribution  an  ever- 
active  causative  phenomena :  the  life  of  the  universe  is 
an  ever-continuing  derivative  generation.  Therefore, 
as  mind  and  matter  are  most  unlike,  if  one  is  from 
the  other,  each  is  an  original  creation,  and  not  as  a 
derivative  propagation:  just  as  the  spider  creates 
but  does  not  generate  from  itself  its  own  web.  Every 
new  web  is  a  new  creation,  and  not  a  hereditary  gen- 
eration. 

As  that  which  does  anything  must  know  how  to 
do  what  it  does,  universal  mind  must  be  the  universal 
Factor,  and  all  else  are  its  facts.     Science  is   limited 


Things  that  do  not  Start  cannot  go  on.       1 39 

to  these  facts  ;  theology  includes  the  facts,  and  by 
these  goes  on  to  a  knowledge  of  their  personal 
Factor. 

If  all  things  are  manifestations  of  a  Power  that 
transcends  our  knowledge,  it  is  important  to  know 
how  much  manifestation  covers.  The  manifestation 
of  Power  cannot  be  co-eternal  with  Power.  But  the 
relation  and  the  propagation  of  things  are  manifesta- 
tions of  Power.  Things  began  in  some  way  ;  unless 
it  be  true,  as  Mr.  Spencer  says,  that  "  the  affirmation 
of  universal  evolution  is  in  itself  a  negation  of  the 
absolute  commencement  of  anything."  But,  we  shall 
see,  if  there  never  was  an  absolute  commencement  of 
anything,  that  it  was  because  everything  is  to  be  re- 
garded as  possibly  eternal  in  eternal  Power. 

But  if  eternal  Power  could  evolve  things,  whether 
eternal  or  not  eternal,  why  could  it  not  create  things, 
cause  things  or  propagate  things?  If  Power  could 
evolve  a  rattlesnake,  why  could  not  Power  create 
one?  Impersonal  Pantheism  is  as  incomprehensible 
as  impersonal  creationism  or  impersonal  evolution. 
Unlimited  Power  is  unlimited  Power.  Creation  is  a 
limited  act  of  unlimited  Power;  and  admitting  un- 
limited Power,  evolution  is  as  incomprehensible  as 
creation. 

This  confounds  Phenomena  with  Nournenon  ;  for, 
though  Nournenon  never  was  but  always  is,  yet,  to 
say  that  there  is  no  absolute  commencement  of  any- 
thing, is  to  say  that  Phenomena  are  ever  going  on 
without  having  ever  started,  for  things  do  go  on  ; 
but  as  no  Phenomena  can  go  on  that  has  not  started  ; 
and  as,  according  to  Mr.  Spencer,  nothing  has  ever 


140       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

started,  so  nothing  is  going  on;  that  is,  as  organic 
nature  never  had  an  absolute  commencement,  it  can 
have  no  actual  continuation  ;  which  is  absurd. 

If  there  is  anything  new  evolved  in  the  universe,  it 
has  been  creatively  evolved.  But,  as  materialistic 
evolutionists  deny  "the  absolute  commencement  of 
anything,"  they  deny  the  creative  evolution  of  any- 
thing new.  With  them  the  new  is  essentially  a  phase 
of  the  old.  Therefore,  in  such  an  eternal  evolution, 
the  old,  as  an  eternal  birth,  is  forever  coming  out  of 
itself ;  but,  in  what  is  here  called  creative  evolution, 
the  new,  as  an  eternal  begetting,  is  forever  coming 
out  of  Power.  As  the  old  is  ever  a  genetic  evolution, 
so  the  new  is  ever  a  creative  evolution. 

Power  manifests  all  things;  but  does  this  Power 
manifest  old  things  or  new  things?  If  manifested 
things  are  new,  then  Power  is  manifested  either  by 
the  production  of  something  out  of  nothing,  or  by 
the  emanation  of  itself  from  itself ;  and  one  is  as  in- 
comprehensible as  the  other.  The  Pleroma  of  the 
Buddhists  emanates  itself  as  things  and  re-absorbs 
itself  as  things.  This  is  evolution.  Buddhism  teaches 
the  fullness  of  Being,  intelligent  and  impersonal ; 
evolution  teaches  the  fullness  of  Power,  unintelligent 
and  impersonal.  Both  are  agnostic.  The  method 
of  emanation  is  one  and  the  same  of  all  impersonal 
manifestations,  whether  of  intelligent  Being,  as  Budd- 
hism, or  of  unintelligent  Power,  as  in  agnostic  evo- 
lution. 

But,  if  evolution  is  the  integration  of  matter,  whence 
came  matter  to  be  integrated?  And  how  can  the 
integration  of  matter  create  anything  without  life,  as 


The  Inorganic  is  Created.  141 

the  inorganic,  and  especially  of  anything  with  life,  as 
the  organic  ?  Is  the  integration  of  impersonal  matter 
vitalizing  and  personalizing?  Mr.  S.  admits  that 
"  the  connection  between  the  phenomenal  order  and 
the  ontological  order  is  forever  inscrutable  "  (F.  P., 
§  194).  "  So  is  the  connection  between  the  condi- 
tioned forms  of  being  and  the  unconditioned  forms 
of  being  forever  inscrutable."  And,  yet,  Mr.  Spencer 
attempts  to  evolve  an  evolution  of  life.  Evolution 
will  do  well  enough  when  we  get  something  to  be 
evolved.  But  we  shall  continue  to  inquire  whence 
came  matter,  and  whence  came  the  Power  to  inte- 
grate matter?  How  was  the  inertia  of  matter  over- 
come,  and  when  overcome,  whence  came  the  power 
to  dissipate  the  motion,  and  restore  inertia  ? 

We  are  told  that  universal,  immanent  force  inte- 
grates matter;  but  we  again  ask,  whence  is  the  force 
and  whence  is  the  matter?  Mr.  S.  speaks  of  this 
force  as  Inscrutable  Cause.  If  we  understand  Mr. 
Spencer,  the  universe  is  a  manifestation  of  an  im- 
manent force.  But  in  what  was  the  force  immanent 
before  it  manifested  the  universe  in  which  to  be 
immanent?     Did  the  child  manifest  its  own  mother? 

Power,  supernatural  and  personal,  without  what 
may  be  called  method,  is  directly  creative  when  out 
of  unity  is  produced  plurality  or  out  of  uniformity  is 
produced  multiformity,  or  out  of  sameness  is  pro- 
duced difference. 

The  inorganic  is  created,  not  evolved  ;  for  the  evolved 
is  eternal  if  at  all ;  for,  if  Power  manifests  the  inor- 
ganic, then  the  inorganic,  as  a  manifestation,  was  not 
always,    and    so    is    not  eternal.      But  if    our  argu- 


142        The  PJiilosopJiy  of  the  Supernatural. 

ment  has  proved  one  supernatural,  personal  Power, 
unlimited  in  time  and  space,  of  course,  all  that  is 
multiform,  natural  and  limited  must  be  its  personal 
or  its  impersonal  manifestations  in  time  and  space. 
All  the  manifestations  of  Power  unlimited  in  time 
and  space  must  be  limited  by  Power  in  time  and 
space;  and  that  which  is  limited  in  time  and  space  is 
not  eternal,  and  that  which  is  not  eternal  is  not  in- 
finite, and  that  which  is  not  infinite  is  finite. 

As  the  organic  and  inorganic  are  manifestations, 
they  are  that  which  Power  is  not ;  and  it  is  surpris- 
ing that  in  a  philosophy  of  First  Principles  Mr. 
Spencer  passes  over  the  evolution  of  the  inorganic 
without  discussion.  If  evolution  is  only  the  integra- 
tion of  matter,  then  there  is  no  evolution  of  the  or- 
ganic. Organic  evolution  is  a  method  of  life  within 
the  inorganic.  If  organic  nature  finds  its  factor  in 
life,  or,  if  life  finds  its  factor  in  organic  nature  in 
what  does  inorganic  nature  find  its  factor?  Mate- 
rialists assume  the  facts  of  nature  and  do  not  attempt 
to  find  a  factor.  Materialism  is  a  mechanical  and  not 
a  chemical  system  of  matter.  The  carbon,  oxygen, 
hydrogen  and  nitrogen  in  animal  bodies  may  com- 
bine, but  they  never  cease  to  be  those  elements. 
Combination  does  not  destroy.  Throughout  nature, 
nothing  ever  changes  its  kind  ;  nothing  can  become 
heterogeneous  to  itself.  Combinations  may  change, 
but  not  the  elements  of  combinations.  Nature  works 
over  her  old  materials.  Nature  is  the  manifold  ex- 
pression of  material  elements  and  immaterial  Power. 

We  must  conclude  with  the  materialists,  either  that 
matter  is  eternal ;    or  with  the  theists,  that    Power 


All  that  is  New  is  Created.  143 

created  matter  out  of  nothing  ;  or  with  the  pantheists, 
that  Power  materialized  or  transmuted  itself  into  mat- 
ter— that  is,  that  eternal  matter  is  possible  in  eternal 
Power.  If  Power  is  all,  then  matter  is  only  a  mode 
of  Power ;  if  matter  is  all,  then  Power  is  only  a  mode 
of  matter.  Is  matter  and  a  mode  of  matter  one  and 
the  same,  in  which  the  eternity  of  one  is  the  eternity 
of  the  other? 

The  whole  process  of  organic  evolution  is  every- 
where attributed  by  Mr.  Spencer  to  the  co-operation 
of  the  variously  conditioned  modes  of  this  universal, 
immanent  force,  internal  and  external.  That  is, 
Power  manifests  itself.  Now,  is  that  manifestation 
of  Power  what  is  called  creation  or  generation  ? 
Creation  is  something  new.  If  Power  is  all,  it  must 
materialize,  for  there  is  matter.  And  is  not  the  ma- 
terialization of  itself  or  the  taking  of  form  by  Power 
something  new,  and  so  a  creation  ?  All  admit,  as  we 
have  seen,  omnipresent  Power.  To  theistic  evolu- 
tionists that  Power  is  a  personal  Creator  ;  to  atheistic 
or  agnostic  evolutionists,  who  deny  creation,  that 
Power  is  impersonal,  and  manifests  an  impersonal 
evolution.  But,  if  impersonal  Power  can  evolve, 
why  can  it  not  create  ?  Is  Power  unintelligent  in 
evolution  and  intelligent  in  creation  ?  Did  not  the 
Power  that  continues  all  things  begin  all  things?  To 
prove  creation  of  the  inorganic,  organic  evolution 
need  not  be  denied.  To  prove  evolution  of  organic 
nature,  creation  of  the  inorganic  need  not  be  denied. 
Creation  of  inorganic  nature  and  the  evolution  of 
organic  nature  do  not  conflict.  They  are  simply  dif- 
ferent stages  of  the  same  phenomena.     The  creation 


144       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

of  the  inorganic  precedes  the  creation  and  the  evolu- 
tion of  the  organic.  Those  who  deny  creation  seem 
to  fear  that  unless  matter  be  eternal,  Power  would 
be  driven,  so  to  speak,  to  create  something  out  of 
nothing.  But  something  is  not  made  out  of  nothing, 
if  matter  is  only  a  symbol  of  Power,  unless  Power  is 
nothing.  Those  evolutionists  who  cannot  say  that 
matter  is  manifested  Power,  cannot  say  that  it  is  any- 
thing else;  for,  it  is  claimed,  that  all  things  are  man- 
ifestations of  Power.  Matter  is  only  a  manifestation 
of  Power,  unless  matter  is  Power.  But  matter  is 
said  to  be  not  Power,  but  only  a  symbol  of  Power. 
If  a  symbol,  it  is  a  manifestation,  and  if  a  manifesta- 
tion of  eternal  Power,  it  is  not  eternal  itself. 

We  have  said  that  methods  are  sometimes  creative 
and  sometimes  genetic.  The  creative  method  of 
supernatural  Power  is  denied  by  Mr.  Spencer  when 
he  says  that  "  the  affirmation  of  universal  evolution 
is,  in  itself,  a  negation  of  the  absolute  commencement 
of  anything"  (i  Biology,  482,  Letter  to  N.  A.  Review). 
That  is  to  say,  by  theory,  all  evolutions  are  eternal — 
all  things  are  evolutions — therefore  all  things  are 
eternal ;  which  is  a  reductio  ad  absurdum.  Assuming 
the  major  premise,  as  before,  let  us  rather  say,  where- 
as all  new  things  are  creations — all  changes  are  new 
things — therefore,  all  changes  are  creations.  Or,  as 
all  changes  are  creations — all  new  things  are  changes  ; 
therefore,  all  new  things  are  creations.  If  the  new  is 
the  created,  then  there  is  creation  when,  as  the  ideal- 
ists say,  supernature  naturalizes,  when  the  subject 
objectifies,  when  the  mental  materializes,  when  the 
homogeneous  heterizes,  when  the  indefinite  becomes 


Atoms  are  Unchangeable.  145 

definite,  when  the  incoherent  becomes  coherent — in 
short,  when  there  is  a  new  number,  a  new  quality — a 
new  quantity,  or  a  new  relation.  Thus  the  averment 
of  eternal  evolution  is  illogical.  But  even  according 
to  this  theory,  only  Power  is  eternal.  Power  had  no 
absolute  commencement;  but  all  manifestations  of 
Power  when  Power  was  all,  whether  creative  or 
evolutionary,  had  a  commencement.  If  manifesta- 
tions of  Power  had  no  "  absolute  commencement," 
the  manifestations  of  Power  must  be  co-eternal  with 
Power — that  is,  the  child  is  as  old  as  its  parent ; 
which  is  impossible. 

An  atom  (inorganic  matter)  cannot  be  integrated 
in  itself.  Molecules  of  inorganic  matter  may  be  inte- 
grated as  motion  is  dissipated — and  molecules  of 
inorganic  matter  may  be  disintegrated  as  motion  is 
absorbed ;  but  there  can  be  no  evolution  of  the  inor- 
ganic atom  itself.  One  element  can  never  be  changed 
into  another  element;  oxygen  can  never  be  changed 
into  carbon.  Different  elements  must  have  a  common 
factor  or  Power,  because  they  cannot  he  evolved  one 
from  the  other.  But  as  elementary  atoms  can  never 
be  other  than  they  are,  there  can  be  no  transforma- 
tion of  the  sameness  of  atoms  into  an  impossible 
difference  of  atoms,  and  so  no  evolution  of  atomic 
matter. 

Homogeneity  means  sameness  of  kind,  and  hetero- 
geneity means  difference  of  kind.  Solid  carbon  is 
one  kind  of  element  and  aeriform  oxygen  is  a  differ- 
ent kind  of  element.  If  carbon  is  changed  from  a 
homogeneous  state  to  a  heterogeneous  state,  it  must 
still  be  carbon,  and  not  an  element  of  another  kind  ; 
10 


146       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

and  so  of  every  other  primary  element.  The  solid 
element  of  carbon  cannot  be  gasified,  nor  can  one 
gaseous  element  like  oxygen  be  changed  into  another 
gaseous  element  like  hydrogen.  But  if  one  kind  is 
not  transformed  into  another  kind,  there  can  be  no 
evolution.  What  is  meant  by  evolution  is,  the  trans- 
formation of  uniformity  of  organic  phenomena  into 
multiformity  of  organic  phenomena,  or  of  unity  into 
plurality,  as  of  one  grain  of  wheat  into  many  grains 
of  wheat;  but  this  is  not  a  transformation  of  one 
kind  into  another  kind,  but  a  multiplication  of  the 
same  kind.  There  may  be  homogeneity  of  a  unit, 
but  there  can  be  no  heterogeneity  of  the  same  unit, 
and  so  no  evolution.  The  transformation  of  homo- 
geneity into  heterogeneity  must  be  in  the  same  indi- 
vidual; but  that  does  not  give  transformation  of  one 
kind  into  another  kind.  Evolution,  as  defined,  con- 
sisting of  the  transformation  of  the  elements,  is  simply 
impossible.  There  must  be  creative  lifting  of  the 
elements.  There  may  be  and  is  change — develop- 
ment— progress  of  the  same  organic  individual,  but 
no  change  of  kind,  organic  or  inorganic,  and  so  no 
evolution  of  kind. 

Strictly  speaking  the  molecule  only  can  be  hetero- 
geneous, and  the  atom  only  can  be  homogeneous,  as 
an  atom  of  carbon,  or  of  hydrogen,  or  of  oxygen  ; 
but  it  is  a  homogeneity  that  never  can  be  heterogen- 
eous. The  atoms  we  mention  can  never  be  other 
than  they  are.  If  evolution  depends  on  the  transform- 
ation of  the  homogeneous  into  the  heterogeneous, 
then  evolution  does  not  include  any  of  the  inorganic 
and  primary    elements   admitted    by    science.      The 


The  Unbridged  Chasm.  147 

relations  of  these  atoms  may,  indeed,  be  allotropically 
changed  ;  but  is  evolution  nothing  but  a  change  of 
relation  ?  Is  a  relation  homogeneity,  or  is  relation 
heterogeneity  ?  Is  an  atom  homogeneous  to  a  mole- 
cule, or  is  a  molecule  heterogeneous  to  an  atom?  If 
so,  homogeneity  and  heterogeneity  is  not  sameness 
or  difference  in  kind  but  in  quantity — in  number — in 
relation.  If  then,  there  can  be  no  evolution  when 
there  can  be  no  transformation  of  the  homogeneous 
into  the  heterogeneous,  and  if  there  can  be  no  hete- 
rogeneity to  the  primary  homogeneous  elements,  then 
there  can  be  no  evolution,  as  evolution  is  defined,  of 
any  part  of  the  inorganic  world  ;  and  Mr.  Spencer 
was  wise  to  pass  over  it  to  the  evolution  of  organic 
natures,  but  it  leaves  unwritten  a  large  and  by  far 
the  most  important  part  of  his  philosophy. 

In  passing  over  the  application  of  his  First  Princi- 
ples to  the  evolution  of  Inorganic  Nature,  Mr.  Spen- 
cer leaves  an  unbridged  chasm  between  evolutionary 
Power  and  Organic  Nature,  which,  we  must  suppose, 
those  First  Principles  would  span,  if  applied.  If  all 
manifestation  of  Power  is  evolution,  then,  as  we 
have  just  said,  the  method  of  evolution  is  creative  in 
Inorganic  Nature,  and  genetic  in  Organic  Nature ; 
for  the  methods  of  manifestation  must  differ  as  the 
manifested  natures  differ. 

This  supernatural  method  appears  to  be  uniform 
in  "the  Constitution  of  things,"  where  its  grasp  is 
only  on  what  is  said  to  be  blind,  impersonal,  uncon- 
scious, inert,  matter.  The  eternity  of  uncreated  and 
and  uncreating  matter  and  force  is  as  incomprehensi- 
ble as  the  eternity  of  an  uncreated  and  all-creating 


148       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

God.  Is  mind  the  product  of  matter,  or  is  matter 
the  product  of  mind  ?  Matter,  as  some  think  of  it, 
cannot  answer  the  question.  Gain  is  a  fact,  and  in 
that  fact  is  a  law  of  nature,  to  hold  all  gains.  Now, 
mind  made  matter,  and  not  matter  mind  ;  because,  if 
mind  materialized,  it  took  on  original  form,  or 
length,  breadth  and  thickness,  and  this  was  a  gain  in 
the  universe ;  but  if  matter  mentalized,  it  dropped 
length,  breadth  and  thickness,  and  this  would  have 
been  a  loss  in  the  universe,  and  so  an  impossibility. 
Matter  knows  nothing  of  its  own  essence,  origin  or 
history,  any  more  than  the  paper  knows  the  origin  of 
the  poem  or  history  written  on  its  surface.  But,  if 
matter  has  existed  from  all  eternity,  has  nothing  but 
such  matter  so  existed  ?  The  eternity  of  matter  does 
not  disprove  the  mind  of  God.  As  mind  is  no 
less  real  than  matter,  if  matter  only  be  real  and  eter- 
nal, then  matter  is  mind  unto  itself.  But  matter 
does  not  know  itself  to  be  mind,  nor  does  mind  know 
itself  to  be  matter.  Matter  cannot  be  said  to  be 
until  it  is  known  to  be ;  but  matter  cannot  be  known 
to  be  until  there  is  mind  to  know  it.  Rather,  when 
matter  was  known  to  be  there  was  mind  to  know  it. 
In  other  words,  matter  is  altogether  unknown  unless 
known  to  mind.  As  mind  knows  nothing  older  than 
itself,  matter  is  not  known  to  be  older  than  mind. 

If  matter  is  eternally  all,  and  being  is  not  eternal, 
how  is  it  that  there  are  beings  at  all  ?  It  is  a  law 
that  like  produces  like,  but  what  is  there  alike  in 
matter  and  being,  that  matter  should  beget  being? 
If  matter  might  propagate  matter,  how  can  matter 
propagate  mind?     If  matter  is  the  mother,  and  mind 


What  is  Matter?  149 


is  the  child,  it  is  indeed  a  strange,  unnatural  moment 
when  the  child  openes  its  conscious  eyes  upon  the 
form  of  its  unconscious  mother.  Can  mind  be  the 
chance  product  of  matter?  If  mind  be  the  product 
of  chance,  then  what  is  by  design?  Can  unintelli- 
gent chance  produce  a  designing  thing  ?  Does  matter 
work  by  design  or  by  chance  ?  If  it  work  by  chance, 
it  produces  designing  mind  ;  if  it  work  by  design, 
then  is  it  not  God  ?  But  if  being  be  eternally  all, 
and  matter  is  not  eternal,  then  what  is  that  which  we 
call  matter?  Is  it  Being  materialized?  Is  matter 
only  an  idea?  We  must  think  of  being  as  a  mode  of 
matter,  or  of  matter  as  a  mode  or  as  a  creation  of 
being.  Both  exist.  How  did  omniscience  get  that 
control  of  matter  which  it  now  has  ?  Did  matter 
create  or  evolve  mind  as  its  own  master,  and  did  it, 
in  mind,  dig  its  own  grave?  Did  matter  surrender 
or  delegate  to  mind,  its  own  child,  the  control  of  its 
movements  ? 

We  do  not  know  what  matter  is,  nor  what  absolute 
being  is  ;  nor  whether  being  can  become  matter,  or 
matter  can  become  being.  The  Scriptures  teach 
that  "  in  the  beginning  God  created  the  heavens  and 
the  earth  ;  "  but  whether  creation  means  that  Abso- 
lute Being  originated  matter,  or  that  he  materializes 
and  manifests  something  of  himself  as  matter,  no  hu- 
man mind  can  know.  How  far  is  the  creator  iden- 
tical with  his  creation  ?  Is  the  web  a  part  of  the 
spider?  Does  heredity  make  parent  and  child  one? 
Can  God  make  himself  something  that  he  is  not?  If 
not,  must  not  that  which  we  call  matter  be  really  a 
metamorphosis  of   the   Being — another   name  for  a 


150       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

manifestation — God  himself?  As  God  cannot  sepa- 
rate or  divide  himself  into  parts,  it  would  seem,  to 
short-sighted  mortals,  that  all  is  God,  and  God  is  all. 
Who  can  deny  a  personal  and  creative  pantheism  ? 
We  can  neither  affirm  nor  deny  that  God  may  be- 
come what  we  call  matter,  for  we  know  not  what 
God  may  choose  to  do  with  himself.  To  God  that 
is  a  God,  nothing  is  impossible.  Are  we  individual- 
ities of  God?  Can  a  conscious  Being  so  abdicate 
himself  as  to  become  an  unconscious  thing?  It  is 
more  probable  that  God  should  convert  himself  into 
a  serpent,  than  that  he  should  create  a  serpent?  Is 
not  metamorphosis  as  incomprehensible  as  creation  ? 
Indeed,  how  do  metamorphosis  and  creation  differ? 
But  Absolute  Being,  creation,  matter,  are  all  alike 
incomprehensible. 

So  far  as  our  minds  can  grasp  and  state  their  rela- 
tions, we  may  say,  that,  in  the  necessary  unity  of  all 
things,  this  Absolute  Being  manifested  himself  both 
in  unconscious  things  and  in  conscious  persons,  the 
highest  personality  being  Christ.  When  his  will  is 
creatively  manifested  in,  if  not  as  substance,  it  is 
known  as  matter  :  when  as  chemic  force  that  will 
combines  this  matter,  or  when  as  mechanical  force,  it 
moves,  or  as  vital  force  it  organizes  this  matter,  it  is 
known  as  cause  or  force.  When  the  Absolute  Being 
manages  this  matter  in  a  way  that  seems  special  to 
us,  we  think  of  him  as  a  worker  of  miracles.  When 
he  manifests  himself  as  a  conscious  person,  we  call 
him  the  Father  of  man  ("  for  in  him  we  live,  move, 
and  have  our  being").  When  he  addresses  himself 
to  man  as  an  intelligent,  moral,  and  therefore  account- 


What  is  the  Anima  Mundi?  151 


able  being,  his  will  is  known  as  moral  law.  Paul 
says  that  there  are  diversities  of  gifts,  but  the  same 
Spirit.  And  there  are  differences  of  administrations, 
but  the  same  Lord.  And  there  are  diversities  of 
operations,  but  there  is  the  same  God,  which  worketh 
all  in  all.  All  is  a  something  from',  if  not  of,  God's 
personality.  So  that,  to  get  God  out  of  religion,  you 
must  first  get  him  out  of  nature,  by  getting  rid  of 
matter,  and  by  getting  rid  of  his  creative  energies 
included  in  the  idea  of  cause,  known  as  force,  law, 
life  ;  for  these  are  manifestations  of  Absolute  Being, 
or  facts  of  his  intelligence  and  power— modes  or  out- 
comes of  his  personality. 

We  hold  that,  as  God  is  spirit,  we  cannot  think  of 
matter  as  God  ;  and  yet  we  cannot  think  of  anything 
as  apart  from  God.  His  infinity  and  omnipresence 
would  seem  to  displace  matter,  if  spirit  can  be  said 
to  displace  substance.  The  difference  between  this 
doctrine  of  omnipresent  and  omniscient  personal  will, 
efficient  rather  than  immanent,  and  the  ancient  notion 
of  anima  mundi,  or  soul  of  the  world,  and  Shopen- 
hauer's  impersonal,  unintelligent,  blind  Will,  is  just 
the  difference  between  God  and  no  God.  Does  God 
create  the  matter-forces  and  then  retire  and  leave 
them  to  go  on  without  him,  or  is  He  personally  those 
forces  themselves?  No  mortal  can  tell  which.  Can 
we  not  say  that  we  see  the  efficient  worker  immanent 
in  the  effected  work  ?  St.  Paul  says,  "  God  worketh 
all  in  all."  But  "  God  is  a  spirit,  and  we  must  wor- 
ship him  in  spirit  and  in  truth."  Science  must  be 
•silent  when  faith  distinguishes  between  God  and 
matter.     God  may  incarnate  himself,  but  if  God  ma- 


152       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

terializes  himself,  he  forbids  us  to  worship  the  divine 
materialisation.  We  must  honor  matter,  not  knowing 
how  divine  it  may  be.  We  may  all  say  to  each  other, 
as  the  Angel  said  to  Moses  at  the  Burning  Bush, 
"  Put  off  thy  shoes  from  off  thy  feet,  for  the  place 
whereon  thou  standest  is  holy  ground."  Nor  was 
Prof.  Tyndall  so  very  profane  when  he  said  that 
"  matter  had  the  promise  and  potency  of  every  form 
and  quality  of  life." 

Taking  the  eternity  of  God  as  a  hypothetical  stand- 
point of  thought,  there  is  seen  to  be  from  Him  an  ever- 
increasing  materialized  emergence — God's  thought 
beaming  visible.  We  cannot  deny  that  there  is  a 
God  by  making  matter  everything  ;  for  that  which  is 
matter  to  you  is  Absolute  Being  to  Spencer,  Will  to 
Wallace,  Mind  to  Carpenter,  Pure  Principal  to  You- 
mans,  Power  to  Fiske,  Spirit  to  Paul,  and  God  to  the 
Angels.  Matter  is  a  form  of  spirit.  The  visible  side 
of  matter  is  next  to  man,  and  the  invisible  side  next 
to  all  above  man.  Still,  whatever  God  may  be  to 
his  matter,  or  whatever  matter  may  be  to  its  God,  to 
us  mind  is  not  matter,  nor  is  matter  mind.  We  can- 
not deny  the  duality,  but  in  the  perspective  of  thought, 
God  is  the  unit  of  both.  He  is  the  centre  of  that 
life  which  permeates  the  universe.  We  can  think  of 
eternal  Being  or  existence,  but  we  cannot  think  of 
an  eternal  thing  or  of  an  eternal  manifestation.  Did 
matter  make  mind,  or  did  mind  make  matter?  All- 
knowing  mind,  to  be  all-knowing  mind,  knows  how 
to  manifest  itself  as  matter,  and  still  remain  mind  ; 
but  matter  as  matter  does  not  know  how  to  become 
mind,  and  still  remain  matter,  for  it  does  not  know 


What  is  the  Outside  of  Nature?  15 


v> 


anything.  In  the  manifestation  of  mind  as  matter,  it 
need  not  drop  its  intelligence,  but  only  add  to  itself 
form  and  continue  to  be  mind  ;  but  in  the  transform- 
ation of  matter  into  mind ;  it  drops  its  essence  of 
form — length,  breadth  and  thickness — and  so  ceases  to 
be  matter.  But  unless  both  matter  and  mind  exist 
eternally,  one  must  make  the  other.  In  that  case, 
mind  must  be  the  Factor  and  matter  the  fact;  for,  if 
we  suppose  that  mind,  knowing  everything,  knew 
how  to  materialize  itself  and  become  visible  in  form, 
or  to  create  matter  when  there  was  nothing ;  and 
that  matter,  knowing  nothing,  knew  not  how  to  men- 
talize  itself,  or  to  create  mind  out  of  itself,  we  must 
conclude  that  mind,  which  knew  everything,  made 
matter ;  and  that  matter  which  did  not  know  how  to 
make  anything,  did  not  make  mind. 

But  no  one,  apart  from  revelation,  knows  anything 
of  the  origin  of  either  matter  or  mind.  Both  have 
been  of  old.  "  As  we  prolong  the  vision  backward 
across  the  boundary  of  experimental  evidence," 
knowledge  is  lost  in  speculation,  and  speculation  is 
lost  in  the  impenetrable  darkness  of  the  eternal  mys- 
tery. Science  may  ascribe  properties  to  matter,  but 
science  cannot  know  how,  or  whence,  or  what  matter 
is.  That  inquiry  belongs  to  philosophy  and  religion. 
Religion  leaves  to  science  the  vain  effort  to  solve  the 
insoluble  question  as  to  what  matter  is,  and  what 
nature  is ;  but  religion  worships,  by  the  intuitions  of 
faith,  and  the  conclusions  of  logic,  the  supernatural 
Power  as  God  above  and  outside  of  nature.  We 
use  the  word  God  as  the  verbal  symbol  of  superhu- 
man Power,  supernatural  Mind,  supernatural  Will. 


154        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

"All  visible  things,"  says  Carlyle,  "are  emblems; 
what  thou  see'st  is  not  there  on  their  own  account. 
Matter  exists  only  spiritually,  and  to  represent  some 
idea,  and  body  it  forth." 

So  far  as  we  know  there  is  no  matter  apart  from 
intelligence.  Both  mind  and  matter  exist.  Which 
is  fact  and  which  is  Factor?  If  human  mind  is  a 
fact,  it  must  have  a  superhuman  Factor.  If  intelli- 
gent nature  be  denied,  unintelligent  nature  cannot  be 
affirmed  ;  for  unintelligent  nature  cannot  take  intelli- 
gent knowledge  of  its  own  unintelligence — it  can- 
not know  that  it  does  not  know  —  mindless  nature 
cannot  know  that  it  is  mindless.  And  not  only  must 
there  be  intelligence,  but  there  must  be  consciousness 
of  that  intelligence;  for  unconscious  nature  cannot 
be  conscious  that  it  is  unconscious. 

"  These  speculations,"  says  Wallace,  "  are  usually 
held  to  be  far  beyond  the  bounds  of  science  ;  but  they 
appear  to  me  to  be  more  legitimate  deductions  from 
the  facts  of  science,  than  those  which  consist  in  re- 
ducing the  whole  universe,  not  merely  to  matter,  but 
to  matter  conceived  and  defined  so  as  to  be  philo- 
sophically inconceivable.  It  is  surely  a  great  step  in 
advance,  to  get  rid  of  the  notion  that  matter  is  a  thing 
of  itself,  which  can  exist  per  se,  and  must  have  been 
eternal,  since  it  is  supposed  to  be  indestructible  and 
uncreated — that  force,  or  the  forces  of  nature,  are 
another  thing,  given  or  added  to  matter,  or  else  its 
necessary  properties — and  that  mind  is  another  thing, 
either  a  product  of  this  matter  and  its  supposed 
inherent  forces,  or  distinct  from  and  co-existent  with 
it; — and  to  be  able  to  substitute  for  this  complicated 


Mind-Force.  155 


theory,  which  leads  to  endless  dilemmas  and  contra- 
dictions, the  far  simpler  and  more  consistent  belief, 
that  matter,  as  an  entity  distinct  from  force,  does  not 
exist;  and  that  Force  is  a  product  of  Mind.  Philos- 
ophy had  long-  demonstrated  our  incapacity  to  prove 
the  existence  of  matter,  as  usually  conceived  ;  while 
it  admitted  the  demonstration  to  each  of  us  of  our 
own  self-conscious,  ideal  existence.  Science  has  now 
worked  its  way  up  to  the  same  result,  and  this  agree- 
ment between  them  should  give  us  some  confidence 
in  their  combined  teaching. 

"The  view  we  have  now  arrived  at  seems  to  me 
more  grand  and  sublime,  as  well  as  far  simpler,  than 
any  other.  It  exhibits  the  universe,  as  a  universe  of 
intelligence  and  will-power;  and  by  enabling  us  to  rid 
ourselves  of  the  impossibility  of  thinking  of  mind, 
but  as  connected  with  our  old  notions  of  matter,  opens 
up  infinite  possibilities  of  existence,  connected  with 
infinitely  varied  manifestations  of  force,  totally  dis 
tinct  from,  yet  as  real  as,  what  we  term  matter. 

The  grand  law  of  continuity  which  we  see  pervad- 
ing our  universe,  would  lead  us  to  inter  infinite  gra- 
dations of  existence,  and  to  people  all  space  with 
intelligence  and  will-power ;  and,  if  so,  we  have  no 
difficulty  in  believing,  that  for  so  noble  a  purpose  as 
the  progressive  development  of  higher  and  higher 
intelligences,  those  primal  and  general  will-forces, 
which  have  sufficed  for  the  production  of  the  lower 
animals,  should  have  been  guided  into  new  channels 
and  made  to  converge  in  definite  directions."  (Wal- 
lace on  Natural  Selections,  p.  369-70.) 

We  speak  of  matter  and  we  speak  of  Being.     Are 


156       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 


they  the  same  or  not  the  same  ?  Has  matter  intelli- 
gence, will,  power,  and  personality  ?  It  is  the  opin- 
ion of  some,  that  matter  is  all,  and  God  or  being  is 
not ;  that  God  is  omnipresent  personality.  If  matter 
is  all  God,  all  God  is  not  matter.  The  whole  subject 
is  incomprehensible.  One  has  no  more  valid  reason 
for  saying  that  the  universe  is  material,  than  another 
has  for  saying  that  it  is  spiritual.  The  scriptures 
teach  that  God  created  all  things  by  the  word  of  his 
power.  If  matter  be  eternal,  it  is  eternal  either  in 
itself  or  in  some  eternal  existence  not  known  as  mat- 
ter. If  eternal  in  itself,  it  is  what  we  call  God  ;  if 
eternal  in  some  existence  not  known  as  matter,  it  is 
not  eternal  as  matter.  If  eternal  in  God,  then  crea- 
tion is  not  the  coming  of  something  out  of  nothing, 
but  it  is  the  transformation  of  being  into  form  ;  or,  as 
Sir  William  Hamilton  puts  it,  "  all  that  there  is  now 
of  existence  in  the  universe,  we  conceive  as  having 
virtually  existed  prior  to  creation,  in  the  creator." 

In  that  sense,  matter  would  be  the  manifestation  or 
mode  of  Absolute  Being;  it  would  be  materialized 
will-power;  the  visible  fact  of  an  invisible  Factor; 
the  intangible  made  tangible ;  the  abstract  made 
concrete — the  subjective  made  objective  ;  spirit  man- 
ifested as  substance.  If  matter  be  not  eternal,  it  has 
been  created  by  an  eternal  creator,  either  when  there 
was  nothing  or  out  of  himself,  as  the  spider  converts 
somewhat  of  himself  into  web.  But  as  we  cannot 
conceive  of  nothing,  matter  must  be  a  form  or  mani- 
festation of  being ;  and  its  eternity,  if  eternal  at  all,  is 
the  eternity  of  being  materialized  in  time.  Matter, 
as  a  manifestation   of   eternal  being,  is  not  eternal. 


The  First  Atom.  157 


Matter  is  the  autograph  of  God.  As  time  is  but  a 
segment  of  eternity ;  as  the  age  of  an  undivided 
whole  is  the  age  of  each  undivided  part,  so  creation 
has  its  place  in  the  history  of  the  eternal.  Creation 
was  but  an  echo  of  existence — existence  includes  all 
changes.  To  God,  creation  as  a  purpose,  has  no 
chronology. 

But  matter  is  not  eternal,  if  it  is  under  the  control  of 
mind ;  for  the  eternal  is  uncontrolled.  If  to  crook  one's 
finger  shows  that  some  matter  is  under  the  control  of 
human  will,  a  fortiori,  why  is  not  all  matter  under 
the  control  of  superhuman  will  ? 

If  matter,  and  matter  only,  be  eternal,  how  explain 
the  mystery  of  development?  Matter  is  as  powerless 
to  change  itself,  as  it  is  to  create  itself.  If  changed, 
its  conditions  must  be  changed  ;  but  who  is  to  change 
its  conditions  ?  It  is  as  impotent  or  inert  to  change 
its  conditions,  as  it  is  to  change  itself  without  change 
of  conditions.  The  seed  in  the  ground  needs  out- 
side building  from  the  soil  and  the  sun.  Whence  the 
secret  of  the  Protean  changes  of  matter,  especially 
up  to  life  and  intelligence? 

2.  The  first  organism,  or  organic  nature.  We  have 
said  that  the  creative  method  is  a  way  or  method  of 
newness  ;  and,  that  in  inorganic  nature  it  was  seen  in 
the  first  atom.  We  shall  now  see,  that  in  organic 
nature,  this  method  of  newness  was  seen  in  the  first 
organism..     The  FIRST  ORGANISM!    whence    was    it? 

The  same  Power  that  manifested  matter — the  first 
inorganic  atom — without  life,  then  manifested  matter 
with  life.  Mr.  Spencer  having  declined  to  discuss, 
in    evolution,   the    origin    of    the    first    atom    in    in- 


158        The  Philosophy  of  the  Sttpernatural. 

organic  nature,  is  at  once  confronted  with  as  great 
a  mystery  as  to  the  origin  of  the  first  organism 
in  organic  nature.  Mr.  Spencer  denies  both  a  first 
atom  and  a  first  organism.  "The  conception  of 
a  first  organism,  in  anything  like  the  current  sense  of 
the  words,  is  wholly  at  variance  with  the  conception 
of  evolution."  "  The  absolute  commencement  of  or- 
ganic life  on  the  globe  *  *  *  I  distinctly  deny  " 
(lb.). 

But,  if  both  matter  and  life  are  neither  eternal  nor 
created,  then  that  unlimited  Power  which  all  admit, 
must  ever  be  objectifying  itself  in  the  symbols  called 
matter,  for  there  is  matter,  or  what  Mr.  S.  calls  the 
symbols  or  the  conceptions  of  matter.  But  Mr.  S. 
cannot  escape  holding  either  the  eternity  of  matter, 
of  materialism,  or  the  creation  of  matter  by  Power; 
for,  when  Power  was  all,  there  was  no  matter  and  no 
symbol  of  matter.  When  Power  broke  up  its  infinite 
and  eternal  individuality  and  solitude,  and  manifested 
the  form  and  substance  of  an  atom  or  of  the  symbol 
of  an  atom,  then  creation  began.  The  first  atom  or 
the  first  symbol  of  an  atom  was  new  and  a  creation. 
If  Power  took  form,  then  form  was  the  form  of 
Power.  The  presence  of  form  was  the  presence  of 
Power.  But  this  manifestation  of  Power  in  form  was 
something  new  for  Power,  and  Power  out  of  itself 
manifested  or  projected  a  form  of  itself — a  symbol — 
called  matter. 

If  there  be  any  validity  to  these  speculations,  they 
prove  the  universal,  continuous  creations  by  Power — 
that  every  activity  or  manifestation  of  Power  is  a 
creation  ;  for  Power  only  is  uncreated.     Every  mani- 


The  First  Organism.  159 

festation  of  Power  is  something  that  Power  was  not 
before  the  manifestation.  As  that  which  is  uncreated 
is  that  which  has  always  been,  so  the  created  is  that 
which  has  not  always  been.  Form — symbol-matter 
— once  was  not,  for  once  Power  was  all.  The  moment 
of  creation  was  the  moment  that  Power  manifested 
that  which  Power  as  Power  was  not. 

In  the  first  organism  is  the  first  life  in  nature. 
Whence  came  that  life  ?  Was  natural  life  inherited 
from  supernatural  life,  or  was  it  derived  from  a 
supernatural  antecedent  without  life?  In  inorganic 
nature,  there  is  no  inheritance — all  is  unsuspended 
creation.  But  throughout  organic  nature,  like  inherits 
from  like.  But  species  never  mix  with  species.  Cre- 
ative power  manifests  dissimilarity  in  its  creations. 
Power  is  as  unlike  its  facts  as  the  mould  is  unlike  its 
bullets.  All  chemical  changes  are  creative  because 
the  effects  are  entirely  dissimilar  from  the  causes. 
Heat  is  unlike  the  electricity  that  follows  it ;  the 
stone  dropped  into  the  water  is  entirely  dissimilar 
from  the  wave  it  raises;  light  is  entirely  dissimilar 
from  the  shadow  it  casts.  Creative  power  as  causa- 
tive power  lies  between  the  cause  and  the  effect, 
making  the  cause  produce  that  which  the  cause  in 
itself  could  not  be.  But  the  genetic  power  produces 
similarities,  and  continuously  transfers  itself  from 
like  to  like,  as  from  seed  to  fruit,  and  from  fruit  to 
seed.  The  supernatural  power  of  life  is  the  natural 
fact  of  life— in  other  words,  the  creative  power  of 
life  in  supernature,  is  the  genetic  power  of  life  in 
nature.  We  know  that  life  is,  but  we  do  not  know 
what  it  is.     If  life  lineally  descends  in  nature  as  we 


160       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

see  it  does,  why  should  it  not  lineally  descend  from 
supernature  ?  We  can  no  more  see  its  end  in  the 
future  than  we  can  see  its  beginning  in  the  past. 
Without  life  there  is  no  consciousness ;  and  in  the 
proof  that  human  consciousness  is  from  superhuman 
consciousness,  is  the  higher  proof  that  human  life  is 
from  superhuman  life. 

The  great,  fundamental  law  of  evolution  in  the 
correlative  integration  of  matter  and  the  concommit- 
ant  dissipation  of  motion,  has  produced  no  such 
result  as  life ;  and  the  almost  unanimous  voice  of 
scientific  learning  is,  that  this  correlation  between 
integrating  matter  and  dissipating  motion  can  pro- 
duce no  such  result.  The  Power  of  life  is  as  much 
ab  extra  as  the  Power  of  motion  (104  Psy.  29).  The 
Power  of  motion  may  be  in  inert  matter,  but  not  of 
it.  But,  it  is  at  this  point  of  nature  that  Mr.  Spencer 
takes  up  evolution.  He  expressly  says,  as  seen,  that 
he  passes  over  inorganic  nature  as  less  important, 
and  takes  up  the  evolution  of  organic  nature  as  more 
important.  But  at  this  arbitrary  skip  of  science,  by 
which  he  cuts  the  phenomena  of  nature  in  twain,  and 
accounts  for  nothing,  but  describes  a  few  facts  of 
matter,  the  student  of  nature  must  enter  an  emphatic 
protest.  Evolution  must  go  back,  and  account  for 
the  beginning  of  the  matter  of  inorganic  nature, 
which  is  integrated.  We  think  of  the  first  dead 
form  and  the  first  living  form,  as  a  commencement 
of  nature,  inorganic  or  organic ;  but  Mr.  Spencer 
tells  us  that  "  the  affirmation  of  universal  evolution 
is,  in  itself,  the  negation  of  the  absolute  commence- 
ment of  anything."     And,  yet,  '  universal  evolution  ' 


All  Power  is  Identical.  161 

gives  us  no  account  of  the  first  atotn  or  of  the  first 
organism.  To  say  that  matter,  atomized  or  unatom- 
ized,  is  eternal  is  what  is  called  materialism  ;  but,  the 
matter-system  of  Lucretius  must  be  denied,  if  the 
Power-system  of  Spencer  be  affirmed.  If  matter 
could  be  proved  to  be  eternal,  it  could  not  be  proved 
to  be  infinite,  unless  space  is  matter;  and  so  finite 
matter  could  not  be  eternal  and  infinite  in  infinite 
Power.  Evolution  teaches  that  matter  integrates;  but 
it  does  not  account  for  the  matter  or  for  the  Power 
that  integrates  it. 

All  manifesting  Power  whether  creative  or  genetic, 
is  the  same.  The  same  supernatural  Power  that 
manifested  the  inorganic  atom  and  the  organic  acorn, 
organizes  itself  in  the  acorn  to  take  care  of  and 
propagate  it.  The  lifting  of  the  inorganic  up  into 
the  organic,  proves  the  identity  of  the  Power  mani- 
festing both.  The  organic  is  the  inorganic  plus  life 
and  function.  The  organizing  of  the  inorganic  into 
the  organic,  is  a  creation  of  the  organic  upon  the 
antecedent  creation  of  the  inorganic. 

It  is  true,  that  in  organic  nature — in  the  transform- 
ation of  the  incoherent  into  the  coherent,  and  of  the 
indefinite  into  the  definite,  matter  passes  from  a  dif- 
fused to  an  aggregate  state;  and  the  definition  of 
evolution  as  an  integration  of  matter  and  concomi- 
tant dissipation  of  motion  so  far  technically  applies, 
if  anywhere  ;  but  we  feel  disappointed  that  evolution 
ignores  the  origin  of  the  first  atom,  or  assumes  it, 
and  the  origin  of  the  first  organism,  or  assumes  it,  in 
which  theistic  philosophy  finds  its  deepest  interest. 
Leave  to  the  world  its  God,  and  the  minds  of  men 
ii 


1 62       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

may  speculate  ad  nauseam,  as  to  how  He  has  done  what 
He  has  done.  Inorganic  nature  being  given,  all  else 
is  a  study  of  mere  method  of  Power,  personal  or  im- 
personal. But  here  is  the  battle  religion  has  to  tight. 
Power  unlimited  in  Time  and  Space  is  conceded  by 
agnostics  ;  the  manifestation  of  inorganic  matter  is 
not  denied  or  discussed,  but  the  question  is.  is  that 
Power  intelligent  and  personal  or  unintelligent  and 
impersonal?  We  claim  to  here  show  that  it  is  intel- 
ligent and  personal.  If  this  claim  be  valid,  we 
have  only  to  study  the  methods  of  an  intelligent  and 
personal  Power,  creative  in  inorganic  nature,  and 
creatively  genetic  in  organic  nature.  The  genetic 
method  is  a  method  of  creative  Power — or,  rather, 
the  genetic  method  is  a  part  of  the  creative  method. 

The  first  atom,  and  all  the  atoms  of  inorganic 
nature,  and  the  first  organism  of  all  organic  nature, 
are  direct  creations,  because  they  are  new  in  the  uni- 
verse ;  while  the  second  organism  of  organic  nature, 
according  to  its  kind,  inherited  creation  from  the 
first  through  indirect  or  genetic  creation.  They  were 
not  created  as  being  new,  nor  were  they  eternal  as 
being  old  ;  but  being  sui generis,  they  inherit  creative 
power. 

The  method  in  organic  nature  is  genetic,  as  that  in 
inorganic  nature  is  creative. 

Unlimited  Power  creatively  manifested  not  only 
inorganic  matter  or  matter  without  life,  but  also  or- 
ganic matter  or  matter  with  life  with  power  to  re- 
produce or  transmit  both  matter  and  life.  Leaving 
to  the  zoologist  and  the  botanist  the  technical  learn- 
ing on  this  point,  we  simply  present  the  fact  of  su- 


The  Definition  of  Evolution  is  too  Narrow.    163 

pernatural  Power  as  factor  in  the  phenomena  of 
transmitted  life  and  function.  Mr.  Spencer  speaks  of 
it  as  a  "  process  of  natural  genesis"  (1  Biol.,  §  113). 
The  genetic  method  is  a  supernaturally  natural  way 
of  transmission — of  reproduction  of  individuals  from 
individuals.  As  the  first  grain  of  wheat  illustrates 
the  creative  method,  the  second  grain  from  the  first 
illustrates  the  genetic  method  of  universal  Power. 
The  genetic  method  of  organic  matter  is  based  upon 
the  creative  method  of  inorganic  matter.  The  first 
thing,  whether  inorganic  or  organic,  was  created  ; 
that  is,  omnific  Power  took  a  form  and  substance 
that  Power  is  not.  The  production  of  one  seed  by 
another  seems  to  deify  the  reproductive  power.  In 
the  ancestral  worship  of  the  Aryan  races,  the  genetic 
power  was  deified.  The  Power  manifested  in  a  tree 
is  the  arborescence  of  supernatural  Power,  as  that  of 
animal  life  is  its  incarnation.  The  Power  that  is 
called  creative  when  it  originates  anything,  is  called 
genetic  when  it  propagates  what  it  had  originated. 

The  definition  of  evolution  is  not  only  too  narrow 
as  an  account  of  organic  or  genetic  nature,  but  it  is 
wholly  inapplicable  to  it.  What  connection  can  there 
be  between  the  integration  of  matter,  the  correlative 
dissipation  of  motion,  and  the  genesis  of  life  and 
function  ?  The  definition  is  forced  to  sustain  a  theory. 
The  organic  is  the  inorganic,  phis  life  and  function. 
The  evolution  of  life  has  never  been  shown,  and  much 
more,  the  evolution  of  function  from  life  has  never 
been  shown.  The  Power  that  manifested  the  atom, 
the  molecule  and  the  mass,  either  from  within  itself 
or  from  without   itself,  then   correlated  matter  and 


164       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

motion,  now  by  wedging-  matter  apart  and  now  by 
compressing  matter  together, — that  same  Power  now 
adds  life  to  its  manifestation  of  inorganic  nature,  and 
lifts  it  into  an  entirely  new  order  of  nature.  Even  if 
it  could  be  shown  (as  it  has  not),  that  the  coming  and 
the  going  of  motion  and  the  concentration  and  dif- 
fusion of  matter,  through  the  transformation  of  the 
homogeneous  into  the  heterogeneous,  and  the  change 
of  incoherency  to  coherency,  and  the  indefinite  into 
the  definite,  had  been  the  method  of  Power  in  the 
manifestation  first  of  life  and  then  of  function  ;  still, 
the  personal,  intelligent  Power  that  manifested  itself 
down  this  line  of  phenomena  was  not  disproved  by 
such  manifestations.  After  all,  behind  nature  stands 
the  Power  that  manifested  both  inorganic  and  organic 
nature. 

Science  admits  a  Power  unlimited  in  time  and 
space,  but  assumes  its  impersonality.  Science  treats 
evolution  as  a  process  of  impersonal  law,  and  em- 
phatically ignores  it  as  a  method  of  personal  Will. 
Religion  treats  evolution  as  a  method  of  personal 
Will,  and  emphatically  ignores  it  as  a  process  of 
merely  impersonal  law.  Materialistic  science  teaches 
that  impersonal  law  is  primarily  all;  while  religion 
teaches  that,  primarily,  personal  Will  is  all. 

Method,  as  a  way  of  Power,  is  either  free  as  super- 
natural Power,  in  creation  and  providence  without 
the  method  of  means ;  or,  as  supernatural  Power,  it 
is  fixed  in  evolution  and  correlation,  as  a  method  of 
means.  That  is  to  say,  supernatural  Power  both  cre- 
ates without  law,  other  than  its  own  intelligent  Will ; 
or,  it  evolves,  with  law,  as  an  expression  of  that  Will. 


The  Unity  of  Life.  165 

Atheistical  science  affirms  the  law,  but  denies  the 
intelligent  Will.  Religion  affirms  the  Will,  and  also 
law  as  its  intelligent  expression.  Will  prescribes  its 
own  methods.  The  dissimilarity  of  products  in  cre- 
ative manifestations  and  the  similarity  of  products  in 
genetic  manifestations  are  because  supreme  Will  so 
wills  it.  In  ourselves  we  see  that  will  is  the  executive 
faculty  supreme  in  each  individual;  and  in  all  phe- 
nomena and  life  out  of  ourselves,  we  cannot  suppose 
that  the  power  of  will  is  less.  Each  tiny  seed,  in  its 
genetic  life,  embodies  the  creative  Power  of  God 
Its  life  is  persistent,  though  possibly  dormant  through 
centuries.  It  never  forgets  its  species.  No  time  can 
make  the  seed  of  wheat  produce  the  tare,  or  the 
acorn  produce  anything  but  an  oak.  Nor  does  the 
seed  ever  forget  that  it  must  produce  a  stalk  before  it 
can  produce  another  seed.  Between  the  producing 
acorn  and  the  acorn  produced  there  must  be  the 
arborescent  life  of  the  grand  oak.  Unbroken  life 
alone  can  multiply  fish,  or  bird,  or  beast,  or  man. 

As  stars  that  shine  by  single  sun. 
So  life  in  each  is  life  from  one. 

No  wonder  that  devout  imaginations  have  seen  in 
living  nature  the  grand  metamorphosis  of  God.  All 
living  trees,  shrubs,  birds  and  insects  seem  to  have 
an  intelligence,  a  life  and  a  power  not  their  own. 
The  very  ground  on  which  our  feet  stand  seems  to 
be  holy  ground.  Creative  power  is  underived  ;  gen- 
etic power  is  derived  from  the  underived  creative 
power.  Creation  is  the  fountain,  and  generation  is 
the  issuing  stream.  Generation  is  only  delegated 
creation ;    in    other  words,    creative    power   confers 


1 66       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

genetic  power.  Whatever  started  nature  is  creative, 
whatever  carries  it  on  is  genetic.  This  evolutionary 
Power,  immanent  in  the  universe,  must  be  both  ex- 
trinsic and  creative  to  lift  the  homogeneous  into  the 
heterogeneous  ;  and  intrinsic  and  genetic,  to  continue 
like  on  into  like.  But  if  it  is  unintelligent,  how  does  it 
decide,  when  it  grasps  a  lump  of  matter,  whether  it 
shall  evolve  into  a  rock  or  into  a  rose  ?  Or  is  this 
differentiation  altogether  a  matter  of  accident  ? 


LECTURE  IV. 


METHOD    OF    EVOLUTION. 

The  old  question,  How  are  we  to  account  for  all 
things?  is  answered  in  these  days  by  the  old  theory 
of  development,  under  the  new  name  of  Evolution. 
We  must  decide  whether  the  universe  is  here  as  the 
creation  of  a  Creator,  or  as  the  uncreated  phenomena 
of  evolution.  If  we  say  that  the  universe  is  evolved 
without  a  Creator,  the  question  arises,  Who  evolves 
evolution?  If  evolution  is  the  derivation  of  one 
thing  from  another,  then  cabbages  are  derived  from 
cabbages,  and  birds  from  birds,  and  man  from  man. 
But  as  there  must  have  been  a  first  cabbage,  a  first 
bird,  a  first  man,  we  see  that  there  was  original  crea- 
tion as  well  as  derivative  evolution.  Evolution  will 
do  after  things  get  a  start;  but  how  did  they  get  a 
start  ? 

The  theory  of  evolution  has  been  before  the  world 
for  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century,  and  it  is  dif- 
ficult to  see  in  it  any  practical  value  whatever. 
No  man  can  manage  a  bank,  sell  merchandise,  con- 
duct a  war,  or  do  anything  else  by  evolution  or  by 
knowing  what  it  is.  Evolution  is  a  speculation 
about  a  method  ;  not  a  rule  of  practice :  It  is  for 
speculative    philosophers ;     not    for    business    men. 


1 68        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

There  has  been  an  immense  deal  of  talk  about  evolu- 
tion ;  but  the  vast  majority  of  people  are  without  the 
slightest  knowledge  of  what  it  is  all  about;  and  all 
who  think  they  know  what  evolution  is,  go  on  with 
the  duties  and  interests  of  life  all  the  same.  Its  only 
importance  is,  as  it  is  arbitrarily  made  to  conflict 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  government  of  a  personal 
God.  Every  now  and  then,  in  the  lapse  of  centuries, 
rises  some  new  theory,  vainly  attempting  to  account, 
without  a  God,  for  all  things.  At  one  time  it  is  Fate 
or  necessity ;  at  another  it  is  accident  or  chance ; 
and  now  it  is  evolution.  Those  who  deny  the  relig- 
ious basis  of  things,  think  that  evolution  accounts 
for  all  things,  and  nothing  more  need  be  said.  But 
what  is  evolution  ?  Evolution  is  the  homogeneous 
becoming  the  heterogeneous.  But  what  is  that?  It 
is  simply  sameness  becoming  difference.  Homogen- 
eity and  sameness  is  unity  ;  heterogeneity  is  division 
and  difference.  An  oak  is  homogeneous  in  its  acorn, 
but  heterogeneous  in  its  roots,  trunk,  branches,  twigs, 
leaves  and  fruit.  This  is  evolution  ;  the  homogen- 
eous becomes  the  heterogeneous ;  the  indefinite  be- 
comes the  definite;  the  incoherent  becomes  the 
coherent ;  the  aggregate  becomes  the  segregate.  The 
evolution  of  nature  has  just  changed  the  vesture  of 
our  hemisphere.  In  the  process  of  foliation  it  is  seen 
from  hour  to  hour.  On  the  naked  stem  comes  a  bud, 
then  a  bud  gradually  bursts  into  a  number  of  differ- 
ent leaves.  There  is  a  beautiful  and  mysterious 
progress,  and  beautiful  and  mysterious  difference. 
This  is  evolution.  It  is  a  metliod  of  power.  But 
what   is   that    power?      Here  the   conflict    between 


New  Names  to  Old  Ideas.  1 69 

evolution  and  religion  distinctly  comes  in,  if  it  comes 
at  all.  By  what  power  does  the  homogeneous  bud 
expand  into  the  heterogeneous  leaves  ?  The  evolu- 
tion itself  is  seen  and  undisputed.  All  that  science 
has  done  is  to  give  a  new  name  to  an  old  method  of 
Power ;  but  it  neither  names  nor  explains  the  power. 
Is  the  Power,  the  power  of  a  Person,  or  the  power 
of  Things?  Power  in  action  is  evolution — in  other 
words,  underived  power  acts  in  a  self-prescribed 
method,  which  science  calls  evolution.  That  is  all 
there  is  of  it.  We  are  no  more  advanced  in  the 
knowledge  of  the  Power  at  the  origin  of  things  than 
we  were  before.  Admitting  evolution,  we  know  the 
method,  but  not  the  origin  of  things.  As  to  this 
origin,  we  are  exactly  where  we  were  before,  and 
where  we  always  shall  be. 

But,  we  repeat,  evolution  is  only  a  new  name  for 
an  old  idea.  What  is  now  called  evolution  was,  a 
few  years  ago,  called  development.  But  there  are 
those  who  think  that  because  the  name  is  new  the 
thing  is  new.  The  only  difference  in  the  use,  though 
there  is  none  in  the  meaning,  of  the  two  words  is, 
development  was  admitted  to  be  the  method  of  per- 
sonal power,  while  evolution  persistently  seeks  to 
force  itself  upon  intelligent  acceptance  as  the  method 
of  impersonal  power.  One  is  theism,  the  other  is 
atheism.  All  admit  that  evolution  is  only  a  method 
or  a  process;  but  whether  it  is  one  or  the  other, 
the  whole  controversy  lies  in  the  old  question, 
whether  the  power  behind  evolution  is  that  of  a  God 
or  of  no  God,  whether  it  is  personal  or  impersonal. 

Now,  the  first  knowledge  we  get  of   power  is  in 


i  70       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

our  persons,  and  that  of  other  persons.  All  fears, 
whether  of  children  or  of  men,  is  of  the  power  of 
beings,  not  of  things.  Things  and  forces  and  ele- 
ments were  feared  only  as  they  represented  personal 
power.  If  the  power  is  not  personal,  then  there  is 
no  religious  morality,  no  right  and  no  wrong  ;  and 
persons  are  only  a  higher  order  of  things  without 
moral  duties  *or  moral  responsibilities.  An  imper- 
sonal thing  or  things  can  give  no  moral  commands 
to  personal  beings.  A  tree  or  a  stone  cannot  impose 
duties  on  a  Newton  or  on  an  Isaiah.  The  underived 
is  God  ;  if  human  beings  are  underived,  then  they 
are  gods  ;  if  they  are  derived,  they  must  take  the  law 
of  their  conduct  and  place  from  the  underived  ;  but 
the  Underived,  as  a  lawgiver,  must  be  personal,  not 
impersonal,  for  we  are  persons.  All  our  ideas  woven 
into  the  fibre  of  knowledge  ascribe  personality  to  a 
lawgiver.  An  impersonal  lawgiver  is  utterly  unthink- 
able ;  so  that  we  must  either  give  up  the  idea  and 
name  of  Law,  or  admit  the  existence  of  a  personal 
Lawgiver.  To  admit  this  is  to  admit  God  ;  to  admit 
God,  makes  it  unimportant  to  the  ends  of  religion, 
whether  evolution  is  a  method,  or  not  a  method  of 
God. 

In  ourselves,  power  is  found  to  be  Will ;  and,  if 
will  is  power  in  us,  why  is  it  not  power  in  all  above 
us?  What  should  make  a  difference?  Right  here 
is  the  rub.  If  infidelity  could  disconnect  power 
from  personal  will,  it  could  discard  the  idea  of  a 
personal  God,  and  the  victory  for  materialism  would 
be  won.  But  this  it  has  not  done;  and  as  long  as 
power  is  in  will,  and  will  is  in  personality,  so  long  su- 


Religion  Personalizes  Power.  i  7 1 

perhuman  power  will  be  superhuman  will,  and  super- 
human will  is  all  that  we  mean  by  God.  With  God 
at  the  head  of  the  universe,  He  may  have  evolution 
as  a  method  or  not  as  He  pleases.  If  the  method  of 
evolution  covers  all  that  is  known  of  the  universe, 
then  it  is  both  creative  and  genetic ;  it  is  creative  in 
evolving  unlike  from  unlike  as  vegetables  from  min- 
erals. It  is  genetic  in  evolving  like  from  like,  as 
oaks  from  oaks  or  wheat  from  wheat.  If  this  house 
is  an  evolution,  it  is  a  creative  evolution  ;  for  it  is  not 
the  generation  of  any  other  house,  nor  can  it  gene- 
rate another  house.  Again,  if  the  vegetables  are 
evolutions,  they  are  genetic  evolutions  ;  because  they 
descend  from  other  like  vegetables.  * 

But  one  thing  is  certain,  that  whether  the  method 
be  creative  or  genetic  or  both,  it  is  only  a  method. 
Science  may  deal  with  the  method,  while  religion 
personalizes  and  worships  the  power.  If  evolution  is 
only  the  method  of  a  personal  will,  then  religion 
does  not  deny  it ;  but  if  evolution  is  claimed  to  be 
an  inevitable  out-rolling  of  things,  then  religion  does 
den}7  it.     There  is  nothing  inevitable  to  God. 

"  The  other  week,"  says  the  London  Guardian, 
"  there  was  a  meeting  held  in  honor  of  the  tercen- 
tenary of  the  foundation  of  the  University.  There 
was  brought  together  a  galaxy  of  talent  such  as  has 
not  been  witnessed  anywhere  in  modern  times.  To 
the  Scottish  capital,  and  to  do  honor  to  one  of  the 
grandest  seats  of  learning  in  the  world,  science,  art, 
literature,  statesmanship  had  sent  their  leading  rep- 
resentatives. •  Much  interest  was  centered  in  the 
students'  meeting.     Here  the  excitement  was  brought 


i  72        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

up  almost  to  a  white  heat  by  the  addresses  of  Minis- 
ter Lowell,  of  Count  Sacifi,  of  Helmholtz,  of  Lavel- 
eye,  of  Pasteur  and  of  Virchow.  It  was  something 
to  see  these  great  masters.  It  was  more  to  hear 
them  speak.  Virchow  was  the  chief  attraction. 
Helmholtz  uttered  a  word  of  warning  against  what 
he  called  False  Rationalism  in  science ;  Laveleye  re- 
minded the  students  that  their  first  duty  was  to  seek 
the  kingdom  of  God,  but  Virchow  surprised,  aston- 
ished and  produced  a  perfect  furor  of  excitement 
when  he  proclaimed  with  emphasis  that  evolution 
had  no  scientific  basis.  The  Darwinian  theory,  he 
said,  might  be  true  ;  but  what  he  demanded  was  proof, 
not  hypothesis.  Such  testimony  from  the  great- 
est anatomist,  the  greatest  master  of  natural  science 
now  living,  it  was  felt  was  a  real  triumph  for  religion. 
The  general  conviction  produced  by  Virchow's  utter- 
ance is,  that  the  tide  has  turned  against  infidelity." 

What  is  a  scientific  basis?  Material  science  inves- 
tigates material  phenomena.  Its  eye  is  ever  upon 
inert,  lifeless  forms.  When  the  phenomena  of  life 
appears,  then  begins  an  inquiry  which  utterly  baffles 
science.  No  scale  of  science  has  ever  weighed  life  ; 
no  microscope  of  science  has  ever  seen  life ;  no  cru- 
cible of  science  has  ever  fused  life;  no  alembic  of 
science  has  ever  distilled  life.  No  scientist  has  ever 
explained  life.  The  reason  that  the  distinguished 
Virchow  announced  that  evolution  had  no  scientific 
basis,  lies  in  the  truth,  that  evolution  is  a  method  of 
facts,  but  not  the  power  of  the  facts  themselves. 
Science  deals  with  facts,  and  facts  .  only.  What 
power  does,  belongs  to  science  ;  what  power  is,  belongs 


Science  is  for  Facts,  not  for  the  Factor,      i  73 

to  philosophy  and  theology.  Anything  beyond  facts 
is  metaphysical,  and  not  scientific.  Science  may 
study  facts,  but  not  the  factors.  The  essence  of 
Power  is  beyond  the  scope  of  science,  but  not  beyond 
the  studies  of  philosophy.  Rules  are  for  science  ; 
principles  are  for  philosophy.  Thus  Virchow  was 
critically  correct — evolution  is  the  subject  of  phil- 
osophical speculations,  not  of  scientific  facts.  Science 
may  tell  us  what  power  does,  but  not  what  power  is. 
If  evolution  is  claimed  to  be  a  power  as  well  as  a 
method,  even  then  there  can  be  no  science  as  to  what 
power  is,  there  can  be  no  scientific  basis  for  evolution. 
If  evolution  has  a  scientific  basis,  then  it  must  be 
admitted  to  be  only  a  method,  and  not  a  power,  and 
as  a  mere  method  of  power,  it  cannot  conflict  with 
what  philosophy  and  religion  reserve  as  Power. 

What  religion  wants  is  to  get  at  foundation  truths. 
If  science  has  them  not,  no  material  barrier  can  stop 
the  soul  from  looking  behind  the  barrier.  Let  evolu- 
tionists explain  the  power  of  which  evolution  is  only 
a  method,  or  be  silent  when  religion  attempts,  how- 
ever tardily  and  gropingly,  to  get  behind  the  evo- 
lution. 

No  one  need  deny  that  evolution,  both  creative 
and  genetic,  is  one  of  God's  methods  in  the  universe  ; 
but  if  there  be  no  God,  there  is  no  evolution.  There 
is  but  one  explanation  of  the  universe,  consistent 
with  all  the  facts,  conditions,  and  on-look  of  things, 
and  that  is,  that  Will — personal  Will — Supreme  Will 
— accounts  for  all.  That  Will  may  evolve,  involve, 
revolve,  or  dissolve,  as  it  may  please,  and  as  infinite 
wisdom  may  see  to  be  best.     Without  that  Will,  we 


r  74       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

cannot  account  for  our  own  Will,  or  for  the  complex 
ity  of  phenomena  in  things  without  will.  If  there  be 
no  such  will  supreme  over  all,  then  blind,  unintelli- 
gent fate,  necessity,  chance,  or  something  else  imper- 
sonal and  dreadful  grasps  the  universe  in  a  remorse- 
less and  eternal  power.  If  evolution  expresses  will, 
religion  is  silent ;  but  if  evolution  claims  to  be  a 
blind,  unintelligent  power,  then  religion,  by  its  very 
nature,  will  ever  oppose  it  under  whatever  new 
names  it  may  be  known  in  the  future,  as  it  has  ever 
opposed  it  under  its  old  name  of  materialism  in  the 
past.     Evolution  is  either  a  process  or  a  method. 

i.  Evolution  as  a  process.  The  proposed  theory  of 
evolution  as  the  process  of  an  unintelligent,  impersonal 
Power  has  not  been  proved  :  evolution  as  a.  method  oi 
an  intelligent,  personal,  Being,  need  not  be  denied. 
Evolution  admits  a  Power  unlimited  in  time  and 
space  ;  and  claims  that  its  manifestation  is  a  process, 
without  beginning  or  ending,  unintelligent  and  im- 
personal. Power  is  manifested  in  things,  and  in  their 
relations.  Supernatural  Power  is  manifested  in  things, 
in  what  is  called  natural  Force.  The  manifestation 
of  Power  in  things  both  organic  and  inorganic,  is 
called  evolution.  When  Power  is  manifested  in  the 
relation  or  correlations  of  things,  we  must  remember 
that  the  Power  that  manages  the  correlation  is  abso- 
lute, and  is  never  itself  correlated.  One  manifesta- 
tion is  correlated  with  another  manifestation — for  in- 
stance, Power  manifested  as  the  force  of  heat,  is  cor- 
related with  an  equivalence  of  Power  manifested  as 
the  force  of  electricity.  The  Power  that  as  Force 
integrates  matter  is  correlatively  dissipated  as  Power 


Is  Matter  Created  or  Eternal.  i  75 

in  motion,  and  is  increased  or  diminished  as  Force, 
but  is  unlimited  as  Power.  From  the  standpoint  of 
evolution,  as  formulated  by  Mr.  Spencer,  is  evo- 
lution a  process?  But  we  ask,  a  process  of  what? 
Mr.  S.  says, '•  we  shall  everywhere  mean  by  evolu- 
tion, the  process  which  is  always  an  integration  of 
matter  and  dissipation  of  matter  "  (F.  P.,  §  97).  Re- 
member that  evolution  is  always  a  process  of  the  in- 
tegration of  matter.  But  whence  the  matter?  Mr. 
Spencer  says  that 

(a)  Matter  is  not  created.  "  The  creation  of  mat- 
ter is  inconceivable  "  (1  Biol.,  §  112).  He  denies  cre- 
ation when,  in  seeking  to  avoid  the  charge  that  he  is 
bound  to  assume  the  first  organism,  says,  "  the  affirm- 
ation of  universal  evolution  is,  in  itself,  a  negation  of 
the  absolute  commencement  of  anything.  The  abso- 
lute commencement  of  organic  life  on  the  globe,  * 
*  *  I  distinctly  deny  "  (1  Biol.,  482,  and  §  112).  But, 
if  it  be  denied  that  the  first  organism  is  assumed,  can 
it  be  denied  that  the  first  atom  is  assumed  ?  To 
admit  the  assumption  of  the  first  atom  would  be  the 
very  materialism  which  Mr.  Spencer  formally  denies. 
Whether  manifestations  of  eternal  Power  be  pro- 
cesses or  methods,  they  are  both  alike  within  the 
ways  of  Power,  and  are  incomprehensible  to  us. 
Materialism  assumes  the  existence  of  matter  ;  but,  as 
we  have  seen,  Mr.  Spencer  emphatically  denies  work- 
ing out  a  materialistic  system.  The  inference  is,  that, 
in  his  theory  of  evolution,  as  in  theistic  cosmogony, 

(b) — Matter  is  not  eternal.  All  admit  a  Power  un- 
limited in  time  and  space,  and,  unless  matter  be  in- 
finite, it  must  be  limited  in   unlimited   Power.     For 


1 76       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

such  Power  to  be  such  Power,  it  must  be  supreme. 
As  there  cannot  be  two  firsts — two  infinite  entities 
(F.  P.,  §  24) — so  there  cannot  be  two  Supremes.  The 
Supreme  is  one.  Power  could  have  no  co-ordinate 
in  matter;  for,  in  that  co-ordination,  Power  would 
would  lose  its  supremacy,  and  cease  to  be  Power  un- 
limited in  time  and  space.  Therefore,  if  matter  be 
neither  created  nor  eternal,  it  follows  that — 

(e)  Matter  is  not  at  all  but  is  ever  becoming— that 
is,  there  is  no  matter,  but  there  always  is  to  be  mat- 
ter. Heraclitus  held  to  a  restless,  changing  flux  of 
things,  which  never  are,  but  are  ever  becoming.  "  No 
one,"  he  says,  ';  has  ever  been  twice  on  the  same 
stream  ;  for  different  waters  are  continually  flowing 
down  :  it  dissipates  its  waters  and  gathers  them  again 
— it  approaches  and  recedes — it  overflows  and  it 
falls."  His  aphorism  was  :  "  all  is  motion ;  there  is 
no  rest  or  quietude"  (Lewes'  Hist.  Phi.,  p.  69). 
Wherein  does  this  differ  from  evolution?  The  insta- 
bility of  the  homogeneous  is  its  pivotal  doctrine. 
The  parallel  is  wonderfully  complete.  The  cosmic 
theory  of  evolution  is  that  matter  never  was  created 
— is  not  eternal,  and  is  always  a  becoming.  The 
manifestations  of  supernature  are  known  as  organic 
and  inorganic.  These  manifestations,  of  course,  have 
commencements;  for,  as  they  are  the  manifestations 
of  eternal  Power,  they  cannot  be  as  eternal  as  their 
manifesting  Power.  To  say  that  there  never  has 
been  an  absolute  commencement  of  organic  life  is  to 
make  organic  life  eternal,  which  is  absurd  ;  or,  it  is 
to  make  evolution  to  be  an  eddying  stream,  ever 
flowing  out  of   itself   in  the    past  into  itself   in  the 


D  iff erence  Between  Emanation  and  Evolution.   177 

future.  This  ever  becoming  is  an  eternal  process.  If 
it  has  results,  they  are  unanticipated  results  ;  for 
process  that  anticipates  nothing  is  not  a  method  that 
anticipates  everything.  The  process  of  the  emana- 
tion of  supernatural  Power  of  itself  from  itself,  and 
the  re-absorption  of  itself  into  itself,  is  Buddhism  in 
science.  But  Buddhism  is  more  religious  in  the  con- 
ception of  this  emanating  Power  as  an  impersonal 
Being,  than  science  is  in  presenting  this  manifesting 
Power  as  an  impersonal  force.  The  Buddhistic  word 
"  emanation  "  suggests  a  going  forth  of  Being  itself 
from  itself ;  while  the  word  "  manifestation  "  of  evolu- 
tion suggests  the  metamorphosis  of  itself  as  itself,  or 
within  itself — that  is,  Buddhism  is  the  emanation  of 
impersonal  Being,  and  evolution  is  the  process  of 
impersonal  Force. 

As  Mr.  Spencer  denies  that  there  is  any  force 
within  matter,  his  system  cannot  be  one  of  dynamics  ; 
and  as  he  also  denies  that  there  can  be  any  force 
without  or  external  to  matter,  it  cannot  be  a  system 
of  mechanics  ;  the  whole  self-evolving  process  of  or- 
ganic nature  must  therefore  be  one  of  genetic  par- 
turition ;  or,  as  he  expresses  it,  "  the  co-operation  of 
the  variously  conditioned  modes  of  universal  im- 
manent force,  internal  and  external."  That  is  to  say, 
the  universal  "immanent  force,"  as  an  external  force, 
is  genetic,  or  begins  to  produce  something ;  and,  as 
an  internal  force,  it  is  parturient.  In  this  system,  to 
beget  and  to  produce  is  the  same  act.  What  else 
can  Mr.  Spencer  mean  ?  Or,  is  there  no  begetting,  and 
is  there  no  parturition  ?    What  do  these  evolutionists 

mean  to  say,  and  what  would  they  have  us  believe? 
12 


i  78       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

Do  they  give  us  any  more  light  than  we  had  before 
as  to  the  origin  of  the  universe? 

Evolution  is  either  free  or  necessary.  Supreme 
Power  behind  evolution  must  be  free  to  be  Supreme 
Power.  If,  therefore,  evolution  seems  necessary  to 
human  intelligence,  it  cannot  be  necessary  to  super- 
human Power.     But, 

(d)  Evolution,  as  defined,  is  not  a  necessity. 
Nothing  is  necessary  that  could  possibly  be  other- 
wise ;  but  what  could  not  be  otherwise  to  Supreme 
Will?  Mr.  Spencer  says  (Pop.  Sci.  M.,  Nov.  1880, 
p.  105):  "The  process  of  evolution  is  not  necessary, 
but  depends  on  conditions."  But  on  what  do  the 
conditions  depend  ?  If  the  conditions  are  necessary, 
then,  of  course,  evolution  that  depends  on  necessary 
conditions,  is  necessary.  On  what  but  Supreme  Will 
can  conditions  depend,  if  they  are  not  necessary?  If 
conditions  depend  on  Supreme  Will,  they  are  not 
necessary  ;  for  nothing  can  be  necessary  to  Supreme 
Will.  That  which  is  called  necessity  belongs  exclu- 
sivelv  to  the  sphere  of  nature.  Supernature  of  its 
own  Will  may  manifest  itself  in  a  process,  or  stereo- 
type itself  in  a  method  ;  but  we  must  ever  remember 
that  Will-Power — Supreme  Will  Power — is  not  bound 
by  its  own  methods.  Power  immutable  to  us  is  not 
immutable  to  itself.  But  whether  evolution  is  a 
method  or  a  process,  it  is  not  necessary  ;  for  Power 
and  intelligence  could  form  or  not  form  the  method 
it  did  form.  But  if  the  phenomenon  called  evolution 
is  a  process  of  impersonal,  unintelligent  Power,  then 
evolution  is  necessary  ;  for  unintelligent  Power  knew 
not  how  to  make  it  otherwise.     Human  intelligence 


Is  Progress  a  Necessity  ?  1 79 

makes  a  distinction  between  process  and  method  that 
superhuman  Power  does  not  make.  Human  names 
are  only  symbols  of  superhuman  Power.  Mr.  Spen- 
cer both  admits  and  denies  the  necessity  of  evolution. 
He  says  :  "  The  doctrine  of  evolution  currently  re- 
garded as  referring  only  to  the  development  of  species, 
is  erroneously  supposed  to  imply  some  intrinsic  pro- 
clivity in  every  species  towards  a  higher  form  ;  and. 
similarly,  a  majority  of  readers  make  the  erroneous 
assumption  that  the  transformation  which  constitutes 
evolution,  in  its  wider  sense,  implies  an  intrinsic  ten- 
dency to  go  through  those  changes  which  the  formula 
of  evolution  expresses.  But  all  who  have  fully  grasped 
the  argument  of  this  work  (Principles  of  Sociology), 
will  see  that  the  process  of  evolution  is  not  necessary, 
but  depends  on  conditions :  (Pop.  Sci.  M.,  Nov., 
1880,  p.  105).  Mr.  Spencer  would  seem  to  hold  in  the 
certainty  of  progress  that  there  is  the  certainty  of 
the  conditions  of  progress.  He  says  :  (So.  Sta.,  chap. 
II,  §  4),  "  The  inference  that  as  advancement  has  been 
hitherto  the  rule,  it  will  be  the  rule  henceforth,  may 
be  added  a  plausible  speculation.  But  when  it  is 
shown  that  this  advancement  is  due  to  the  working 
of  a  universal  law  ;  and,  that  in  virtue  of  that  law  it 
must  continue  until  the  state  we  call  perfection  is 
reached,  then  the  advent  of  such  a  state  is  removed 
out  of  the  region  of  probability  into  that  of  certainty. 
If  any  one  demurs  to  this  let  him  point  out  the 
error."  *  *  *  "  Progress,  therefore,  is  not  an 
accident  but  a  necessity."  The  theory  of  evolution 
is,  that  everything  is  in  a  state  of  instability,  and  that 
all  phenomena  are  results  of  that  instability,  not  the 


1 80       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

creations  of  originating-  power,  But  whence  are  all 
things  and  whence  is  the  instability  of  all  things? 
If  Will  is  behind  all  things,  and  behind  the  instabil 
ity  of  all  things,  then  nothing  is  necessary  in  the 
universe ;  for  nothing  can  be  necessary  to  Will  and 
Will  be  Will.  Mr.  Spencer  says  :  "  All  finite  forms 
of  homogeneous  -all  forms  of  it  which  we  can  know 
or  conceive,  must  inevitably  lapse  into  heterogeneity." 
(F.  P.  §  155).  "To  the  conclusion  that  the  changes 
with  which  evolution  commences  are  thus  necessitated 
remains  to  be  added  the  conclusion  that  these  changes 
must  continue.  The  absolutely  homogeneous  must 
loose  its  equilibrium  ;  and  the  relatively  heterogen- 
eous must  lapse  into  the  relatively  heterogeneous. 
*  *  *  And  thus,  the  continued  changes,  which 
characterize  evolution,  in  so  far  as  they  are  consti- 
tuted by  the  lapse  of  the  homogeneous  into  the  hete- 
rogeneous and  of  the  heterogeneous  into  the  more 
heterogeneous  are  necessary  consequences  of  the  per- 
sistence of  force."  (F.  P.,  §155).  It  is  not  clear  in  the 
face  of  these  and  other  doctrinal  formulas  of  Mr. 
Spencer  that  we  understand  him  when  he  says: 
"  The  process  of  evolution  is  not  necessary,  but  de- 
pends on  conditions."  Are  the  conditions  necessary? 
To  get  anything  like  an  adequate  notion  of  evolution, 
we  must  study  the  power  that  exists  before  evolution 
begins,  the  process,  the  conditions,  the  product,  and 
the  method  of  nature.  From  every  consideration, 
we  see  that  all  must  be  free  in  the  free  Will  of  Power 
(the  personal  Power  we  call  God),  or  all  is  necessary 
in  the  necessary  process  of  impersonal  evolution. 
The  fact  is,  that  behind  an  evolution  inevitable  as  to 
us,  there  is  the  Will  of    Power,  free  as  to  all.     To 


Is  Evolution  Eternal?  181 

those  who  den)r  this  Will,  what  happens,  happens. 
Things  could  not  be  otherwise  than  they  are.  As  we 
have  said,  evolution  as  a  method  implies  intelligence. 
Evolution  as  a  manifestation  of  any  kind  implies 
Power,  and  Power  is  Will.  If  human  Power  is 
human  Will,  why  is  not  superhuman  Power  Super- 
human Will?  We  therefore  conclude  that  evolution 
is  a  method  of  Superhuman  Will.     For  that  reason, 

(e)  Evolution,  as  defined,  is  not  eternal.  Mr. 
Spencer  teaches  that  it  is  eternal.  He  says  "  the 
affirmative  of  eternal  evolution  is,  in  itself,  the  nega- 
tion of  the  absolute  commencement  of  anything:." 
(i  Bio.,  482). 

If  there  is  universal  evolution  and  there  is  no  abso- 
lute commencement  of  anything,  then  the  matter  to 
be  integrated  in  evolution  is  eternal,  and  the  process 
of  evolution  is  eternal — that  is,  there  must  be  an  eter- 
nal evolution,  by  eternal  Power,  of  eternal  matter. 
According  to  this  theory  of  evolution,  eternal  Power 
eternally  manifested  itself  in  some  eternal  thing.  The 
next  was  eternally  to  transform  that  eternal  thing  into 
some  other  eternal  thing.  Agnostic  evolution,  in 
denying  the  absolute  commencement  of  anything, 
assumes  the  eternal  existence  of  matter.  According 
to  this  evolution,  all  things  were  eternal  that  eternal 
Power  manifested  in  an  eternal  instability.  The  eter- 
nal power  that  eternally  made  eternal  motion,then  eter- 
nally dissipated  eternal  motion,  and  eternally  held  it- 
self eternally  still,  and  made  all  things  eternally  stable. 
The  eternallv  diffused  matter  that  eternal  Power 
manifested  eternallv  apart,  or  in  an  eternal  disinte- 
gration,   eternal    Power    afterwards    eternally    inte- 


182       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

grated  or  brought  eternally  together.  What  eternal 
Power  eternally  manifested  as  eternally  indefinite, 
eternal  Power  eternally  transformed  into  the  eter- 
nally definite ;  and  what  eternal  Power  eternally 
manifested  as  eternally  incoherent,  eternal  power 
eternally  transformed  into  the  eternally  coherent. 
All  eternal  sameness  was  eternally  transformed  into 
eternal  difference.  This  brings  us  to  the  absurdity 
of  an  acephalous  universe. 

(/)  If  Evolution  is  not  eternal,  it  is  not  a  process. 
According  to  agnostic  evolution,  eternal  Power  is 
synonymous  with  eternal  Process.  But  evolution  is 
not  eternal  if  there  are  changes  in  it ;  for  the  eternal 
is  the  unchanged.  All  changes  are  new,  like  the 
revolving  views  of  the  Kaleidescope  ;  and  all  that 
is  new  is  a  commencement,  and  all  that  is  a  commence- 
ment is  a  creation.  Creation  implies  Power;  and 
creating  power  implies  intelligence,  as  its  manifesta- 
tions are  intelligent.  Mr.  Spencer's  reasoning  would 
seem  to  be  that  Power  was  and  is  all,  and  all  was  and 
is  Power.  There  being  no  "absolute  commencement 
of  anything,''  eternal  Power  never  did  anything  that 
was  not  eternal.  Eternal  Power  evolved  those  eter- 
nal modes  of  eternal  Power  which  he  calls  matter  and 
motion.  But  can  modes  be  eternal  ?  Can  phenomena 
be  eternal?  Are  changes  fragments  of  the  eternal? 
In  a  word,  evolution  is  a  method  of  going  on  after 
a  start ;  but  how  about  the  start  ?  In  making  evolu- 
tion universal  and  eternal,  all  things  are  made  to  go 
on  without  having  started ;  but  this  leads  to  the 
absurdity,  that  as  nothing  can  go  on  that  has  not 
started,  and  as,  according  to  Mr.  S.,  nothing  ever 
started,  nothing  has  ever  gone  on. 


Evolution  not  Proved.  183 


{g)  If  evolution  is  not  a  process,  it  is  nothing. 
Mr.  Spencer  himself,  says,  "  Construed  in  terms  of 
evolution,  ever}'  kind  of  being  is  conceived  as  a  pro- 
duct of  modifications  wrought  by  insensible  grada 
tions  on  a  pre-existing  kind  of  being ;  and  this  holds 
as  fully  of  the  supposed  commencement  of  organic 
lifo,  as  of  all  subsequent  developments  of  organic  life." 
(1  Bio.  p.  482).  Yet  lie  admits  that  the  evolution 
alluded  to  in  the  language  just  quoted,  is  not  proved 
by  direct  evidence.  He  says  :  "  Though  the  facts  at 
present  assignable  in  direct  proof  that  by  progressive 
modifications,  races  of  organisms  that  are  apparently 
distinct  may  result  from  antecedent  races,  are  not 
sufficient ;  yet,  there  are  numerous  facts  of  the  order 
required."     (1  Bio.,  p.  351,  §  119). 

2.  Is  Evolution  a  method  ?  Are  the  manifestations 
of  this  admitted  Power  an  eternal  process  or  a  pre- 
scribed method  ?  The  answer  to  these  questions  sus- 
tains or  invalidates  agnostic  evolution.  Evolution, 
as  defined  is  a  method ;  but  evolution  defined  as  a 
method  is  not  a  method  of  evolution,  but  a  method 
of  correlation.  Admitted  Power,  unlimited  in  Time 
and  Space,  is  either  intelligent  or  unintelligent.  The 
manifestations  of  unintelligent  Power  would  be  utter- 
ly unintelligible;  the  manifestation  of  intelligent 
Power  is  a  method.  But  whether  the  Power  is  intel- 
gent  or  unintelligent,  Mr.  Spencer  calls  its  manifesta- 
tion a  process.  What  is  the  difference  between  a 
method  and  a  process,  and  wherein  is  the  importance 
of  the  distinction?  If  there  be  design  in  the  mani- 
festation of  Power,  it  is  unimportant  whether  the 
manifestation    be    called    a    process    or    a    method. 


184       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

Method  in  a  process  makes  the  process  a  method  ; 
but  process  in  a  method  does  not  make  the  method 
a  process.  The  process  might  realize  the  method ; 
as  the  process  of  the  growth  of  a  tree  realizes  the 
design  in  the  seed. 

But  Modern  Thought,  as  it  is  called,  uniformly 
omits  all  allusion  to  design,  as  it  would  imply  a  De- 
signer ;  and  there  seems  to  be  a  growing  evasion  of 
the  word  law,  as  that  implies  a  Lawgiver.  The  atti- 
tude of  Modern  Thought  is  to  ignore  words  of  per- 
sonality, of  Will  and  of  Intelligence.  It  therefore 
uses  the  impersonal  word  "process"  in  preference,  if 
not  to  the  exclusion  of  the  personal  word  "  method." 
To  a  theist  method  implies  nothing  less  than  personal 
intelligence  —  no  intelligence,  no  method.  To  an 
atheist  process  implies  nothing  more  than  impersonal 
Power — no  power,  no  process.  In  method  there  is 
plan ;  in  process  there  is  action.  That  is,  method 
emphasizes  personal  intelligence  rather  than  imper- 
sonal Power;  process  emphasizes  impersonal  Power 
rather  than  personal  intelligence.  Evolution  as  a 
process  may  be  impersonal,  if  such  evolution  can  be 
at  all ;  evolution  as  a  method  must  be  personal.  There 
might  be  a  theistic  process,  but  there  could  be  no 
atheistic  method.  The  distinction,  therefore,  between 
method  and  process,  in  evolution,  is  the  distinction 
between  theism  and  atheism.  If  evolution  were  a 
process,  and  not  a  method,  it  would  imply  the  eternal 
circle  of  an  endless  beginning.  As  the  created  is  the 
new,  so  far  as  evolution  is  a  process  unfolding  the 
new,  and  never  repeating  the  old,  like  a  method,  it  is 
a  continuous  and  unbroked  creation.     A  genetically 


Diffei'ence  Between  Process  and  Method.      185 

repeated  production  is  a  method.  A  process  never 
repeats,  but  always  flows  on  like  a  river  without  a 
fountain,  A  method  is  when  Power  has  a  way  of 
creating  types  and  generating  individuals.  All  new 
things  are  according  to  a  method  of  newness ;  all 
propagated  things  are  according  to  a  method  of 
generation ;  and  all  exchange  of  equivalents  is  accord- 
ing to  a  method  of  correlation.  That  which  is  called 
evolution,  but  which  is  the  same  as  correlation,  is  a 
method,  because  it  always  does  the  same  kind  of 
thing  in  the  same  way.  It  is  a  process  so  far  as  noth- 
ing is  repeated. 

Power  observes  a  method  when  it  akvays  transforms 
the  homogeneous  into  the  heterogeneous ;  when  it 
akvays  defines  the  indefinite,  or  always  coheres  the 
incoherent ;  or  when  it  akvays  integrates  diffused 
matter  as  motion  dissipates.  This  is  method  and  not 
process  ;  and  being  a  method,  it  implies  personal  in- 
telligence, power,  and  a  time  when  method  was  not. 
Evolution,  as  defined,  is  an  eternal  correlation  or  ex- 
change of  matter  and  motion  ;  evolution,  as  described, 
is  the  process  of  an  eternal  coming  and  going,  the 
flux  and  reflux  of  Heraclitus,  of  matter  and  its  modes. 
Evolution,  as  defined,  is  the  barter  of  matter  and 
force  in  nature,  giving  so  much  of  one  for  so  much 
of  the  other ;  evolution,  as  described,  is  the  allotrop- 
ism — the  chemistry— the  metamorphosis  of  nature. 

Prof.  Tyndall  confesses  that  "  the  whole  process  of 
evolution  is  the  manifestation  of  a  power  absolutely 
inscrutable,  to  the  intellect  of  man."  But  nature 
makes  as  high  a  revelation  of  intelligence,  as  she 
does  of  Power ;    but  why  admit  the  Power  and  deny 


1 86       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 


the  intelligence  behind  the  Power?     Can  we  think  of 
either    without    thinking   of    both?     In    looking-   at 
Grecian  Temples,  and  Christian   Cathedrals,  do   we 
think  only  of  the  strength  of  the  materials  in  their 
construction?    or,  are  we  not  rather  impressed  with 
their  feeling  of  aspiration,  and  the  wonderful  intelli- 
gence of  their  plan  and  decorations  ?     In  the  minute 
and  graceful,  do  we   not  think  more  of   the   intelli- 
gence than  we  do  of  the  Power  they  exhibit  ?  and  so 
of  the  wondrous  system  of  worlds  around  us.     Is  the 
Cosmos   a    process   of    impersonal     Power,    or    the 
method  of  Personal  Will  ?     Why  should  the  Power 
personalized    in    human    nature    be    impersonalized 
in   superhuman    nature?      If    all    things    are    mani- 
festations of   a  power  that    transcends    our   knowl- 
edge,  it  is  as  illogical  to    deny    the    personality    of 
that  Power  as  to  affirm  its  impersonality.     But  how 
shall    we    account    for    our    conscious    personality? 
If   there    never    has    been  any    absolute   commence- 
ment of   organic  life  on  the  globe,  as  Mr.  Spencer 
emphatically  affirms  (i  Biol.,  p.  482),  then,  human  life 
must  have  been  eternal  in  the  eternity  of  superhuman 
life.     To  say  that  dead  matter  is  a  mode  of  life  is 
mere  assertion,  unscientific  in  its  dogmatic  tone.     If 
living  organisms  are  eternal  continuities  of  life,  let  it 
be  shown.     The  bearing  of  what  is  strangely  called 
evolution   is  to  impersonalize   Power,  and   to  deny 
personal  creation.     It  uses  the   word    manifestation 
in    place    of    the    word    creation ;     but    the    word 
manifestation  will  answer  for  religion  as  well  as  for 
science. 

Evolution,  as  taught  by  Mr.   Spencer,  originates 


Design  Lifts  a  Process  into  a  Method.       187 

nothing';  for,  in  his  theory  of  evolution,  nothing  is 
original,  or,  to  use  his  phrase,  "  there  never  was  an 
absolute  commencement  of  anything."  All  things 
are  said  to  be  in  an  eternal  activity  of  flux  and  reflux. 
According  to  this  theory,  evolution  is  an  eternal  pro- 
cess of  unoriginated  development  of  one  thing  out  of 
another,  either  by  eternal  generation,  or  by  eternal 
metamorphosis.  There  being  no  matter,  as  is  claimed, 
either  created  or  eternal,  but  only  our  conception,  as 
the  symbols  of  matter,  evolution  is  only  the  eternal 
process  of  the  symbols  of  an  Unknowable  Reality, 
called  matter.  Can  it  be  said  to  be  unknown,  when 
unlimited  Power,  of  which  it  is  a  manifestation,  is 
admitted  to  be  eternal  ? 

Materialistic  evolutionists  deny  a  prescribed  method 
and  affirm  an  eternal  process.  A  method  which  im- 
plies design  may  include  a  designed  process,  but  an 
undesigned  process  can  never  include  a  designed 
method.  Design  lilts  a  process  into  a  method.  Tak- 
ing evolution  as  Mr.  Spencer  defines  it  (F.  P.,  §  145), 
it  is  a  method  of  correlation.  Taking  evolution  as  he 
describes  it  {lb.  §  97),  and  evolution  is  a  process.  He 
says,  "  we  shall  everywhere  mean  by  Evolution  the 
process  which  is  always  an  integration  of  matter  and 
dissipation  of  motion,  but  which,  as  we  shall  now  see, 
is  in  most  cases  much  more  than  this."  As  a  method, 
what  is  called  evolution  is  correlation  ;  an  intelligent 
process  is  a  method.  As  an  unintelligent  process, 
evolution  is  impossible;  for  an  unintelligent,  imper- 
sonal process  must  be  an  eternal  process  ;  and  an 
eternal  process  of  an  unintelligent,  impersonal  Power, 
is    unintelligible.      All    manifestation    of    intelligent 


1 88       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

Power  is  either  a  method  or  a  miracle.  If  all  that  is 
unintelligent  be  a  process,  it  cannot  be  a  method  ;  if 
all  that  is  intelligent  be  a  method,  it  cannot  be  a  pro- 
cess. Method  implies  intelligence  and  intelligence 
implies  a  method. 

3.  Evolution  cannot  be  a  process  rather  than  a  method  ; 
and  this  distinction  is  most  important  if  there  is  to 
be  any  moral  conduct.  Moral  conduct  implies  the 
intelligence  and  will  that  is  implied  in  method.  If 
intelligent  method  in  evolution  be  denied,  so  intelli- 
gent conduct  must  be  denied  in  morality  ;  for  a  mor- 
ality without  intelligence  is  without  authority,  and 
morality  without  authority  is  no  morality.  The 
learned  writer  of  the  Introduction  to  the  Data  of 
Ethics,  says,  there  are  two  systems  of  morality — that 
which  claims  supernatural  authority,  and  that  which 
is  grounded  in  nature  ;  one  of  these  must  be  accepted 
or  all  morality  is  denied."  (Intro.  D.  E.  IX).  But  if 
nature  be  an  unintelligent,  impersonal  process,  no 
system  of  moral  conduct  can  be  grounded  on  it.  An 
unintelligent,  unauthorized  process  cannot  evolve  in- 
telligent, authorized  conduct.  But  intelligence  and 
will  implied  in  a  method  of  evolution  is  the  intelli- 
gence and  will  implied  in  an  authority  of-  conduct. 
Therefore,  if  morality  be  an  evolution,  as  Mr.  S. 
claims,  then  evolution  must  be  an  intelligent  method  ; 
but  if  evolution  be  an  unintelligent  process,  then 
morality  is  an  impossibility. 

Mr.  Spencer  admits,  as  we  have  seen  on  p.  i6r 
that  "  all  accountable  and  natural  facts  are  proved  to 
be,  in  their  ultimate  genesis,  unaccountable  and  super- 
natural "  (F.  P.,  §  30) ;  and  from  this  we  might  reason- 


Supernatural  Morality.  189 


ably  expect  Mr.  Spencer  to  teach  a  supernatural 
morality.  He  says  "  amid  the  mysteries  which  be- 
come the  more  mysterious  the  more  they  are  thought 
about,  there  will  remain  the  one  absolute  certainty, 
that  he  is  ever  in  the  presence  of  an  Infinite  and  Eter- 
nal Energy,  from  which  all  things  proceed."  Pop. 
Sci.  M.,  Jan.,  1884.)  Though  he  thus  admits  the 
supernatural — the  Infinite  and  Eternal  Energy  from 
which  all  things  proceed  — he  not  only  does  not 
expect  morality  to  proceed  from  this  Energy,  but 
says,  "  The  establishment  of  rules  of  right  conduct 
on  a  scientific  basis  is  a  pressing  need.  Now  that 
moral  injunctions  are  losing  the  authority  given  by 
their  supposed  sacred  origin,  the  secularization  of 
morals  is  imperative."  (Pref.  Data  of  Ethics,  vi). 
The  "sacred  origin  of  moral  injunctions"  is  not 
supposed  but  necessarily  admitted  in  the  admission  of 
supernature.  And  again  :  if  from  the  Infinite  and 
Eternal  Energy  all  things  proceed,  why  are  moral 
injunctions  excepted,  why  should  the  secularization 
of  morals  be  imperative?  If  from  this  Infinite  Energy 
all  things  proceed,  how  can  morals  be  secularized  ? 
That  which  is  essentially  sacred  cannot  become  sec- 
ular. 

We  expect  to  show  the  impossibility  of  Mr.  Spen- 
cer's system  of  morality  "grounded  in  nature,"  where 
he  exclusively  places  it;  and  also  to  show  that  mor- 
ality must  be  from  the  supernature,  which  he  admits, 
exactly  under  the  authority  where  he  denies  it  to  be. 
To  admit  supernature,  admits  its  moral  as  well  as  its 
material  authority.  It  would  be  more  consistent 
either  to  deny  the  supernatural,  or  to  admit  its  moral 


190       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

authority.  If  the  basis  of  morals  must  be  scientific, 
of  course  morals  must  be  natural  and  not  supernatu- 
ral ;  because  there  can  be  no  science  of  the  super- 
natural. Suppose,  that,  by  induction,  we  try  to  put 
morals  upon  a  scientific  basis :  what  must  we  first 
do?  Mr.  Spencer  says,  "  Our  preparatory  step  must 
be  to  study  the  evolution  of  conduct."  (D.  E.,  §  2) ; 
that  "  moral  phenomena  "  (as  all  else)  "  are  the  phe- 
nomena of  evolution."  (D.  E.,  §  23).  Is  this  evolu- 
tion theistic  or  atheistic — free  or  necessary  —  pre- 
scribed or  unprescribed  ?  Unless  there  are  two  or 
more  kinds  of  evolution,  the  laws  of  the  evolution  of 
morals  must  be  the  same  as  the  laws  of  the  evolution 
of  matter.  Not  stopping  here  to  define  any  terms  — 
nature  or  supernature — morality  or  evolution—  the 
logical  argument  is,  that  whatever  is  not  prescribed 
is  either  accidental  or  necessary.  According  to  mate- 
rialistic evolutionists,  evolution  is  not  prescribed,  and 
is,  therefore,  either  accidental  or  necessary.  It  must 
be  necessary  ;  for,  as  to  morals,  Mr.  Spencer  says  (D. 
E.,  §21):  "The  view  for  which  I  contend  is,  that 
Morality,  properly  so-called — the  science  of  right 
conduct — has  for  its  object  to  determine  how  and  why 
certain  modes  of  conduct  are  detrimental,  and  cer- 
tain other  modes  beneficial.  These  good  and  bad 
results  cannot  be  accidental ;  but  must  be  necessary 
consequences  of  the  constitution  of  things."  A  nec- 
essary constitution  of  things  makes  consequences 
necessary.  Between  the  constitution  of  things  and 
necessary  consequences,  where  does  necessity  begin? 
What  is  necessity  ?  Theists  contend,  that  with  a 
divine    Will   in    the    universe    nothing  is  necessarv. 


Atheistic  Evolution  is  Necessary.  191 

But  to  theists  it  is  more  easy  to  tell  what  necessity  is 
not  than  what  it  is.  Necessity  is  not  the  irrevocable 
behind  us,  but  it  is  the  inevitable  before  us.  In  neces- 
sity there  is  no  intelligence,  for  there  is  no  plan  ; 
there  is  no  will,  because  there  is  no  choice  ;  there  is 
no  hope,  because  there  is  no  escape ;  there  is  no  re- 
sponsibility, because  there  is  no  freedom.  If,  then, 
evolution  is  not  prescribed  because  prescription  im- 
plies authority,  which  materialistic  evolutionists  deny; 
and  if  evolution,  especially  of  morality,  is  not  an 
accident,  as  we  learn  from  Mr.  Spencer,  it  is  evident 
from  the  reasoning-  of  these  materialistic  evolution- 
ists and  from  their  stand-point,  that, 

First. — All  evolution  is  necessary  evolution.  If  it 
is  not  necessary  is  it  free?  If  it  is  free,  is  it  evolu- 
tion? By  evolution,  is  generally  meant  phenomena 
without  a  God.  If  all  things  come  from  God,  it 
does  not  matter  whether  we  call  the  way  they  come, 
evolution,  or  creation,  or  anything  else.  Right  here, 
as  to  whether  evolution  is  free  or  necessary,  is  the 
whole  question  of  natural  or  supernatural  morality. 
As  we  know  no  freedom  apart  from  Will,  if  there  be 
no  Will  in  evolution,  there  can  be  no  freedom.  If 
evolution  be  neither  free  nor  accidental,  it  must  be 
necessary.  Evolution  does  not  claim  to  proceed 
from  Will,  or  to  address  itself  to  will.  It  is  not  free 
to  command,  and  no  one  is  free  to  obey.  Therefore, 
it  must  be  admitted  or  denied,  that  all  impersonal 
evolution  is  necessary  evolution.  If  it  be  admitted, 
as  it  must  be  by  all  materialistic  evolutionists,  then, 
it  follows,  as  all  evolution  is  necessary,  and  all  natural 
morality   is  an   evolution,   that  all  natural  morality 


192        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

must  be  necessary ;  and  necessary  morality  is  no 
morality.  If  it  be  denied,  and  it  be  claimed,  that 
there  is  a  natural  morality,  which  is  an  evoluution, 
but  not  a  necessary  evolution,  then  such  evolution 
must  be  merely  a  method  of  a  free  Power ;  and  if 
free,  as  we  are  conscious  of  freedom  only  in  a  free 
Will,  we  come,  in  our  denial  of  a  necessary  evolution, 
to  an  all-evolving  Will,  whose  uniformity  is  not  a 
necessity  of  evolution. 

Mr.  Spencer  speaks  of  a  "Power  manifested  through- 
out evolution  work."  Does  this  power  work  with 
method  or  without  method?  According  to  Prof. 
Hceckel,  and  some  other  materialistic  evolutionists, 
this  Power  works  without  method.  He  says  in  his 
Munich  Address,  that  "those  rudimentary  organs 
— eyes  that  see  not — wings  that  fly  not,  muscles  that 
do  not  contract,  clearly  show,  that  conformity  to  an 
end,  in  the  structure  of  organic  forms,  is  neither 
general  nor  complete;  they  do  not  emanate  from  a 
plan  of  creation  drawn  up  beforehand,  but  were  of 
necessity  produced  by  the  accidental  clash  of  mechan- 
ical causes."  (Mr.  Spencer  denies  "accidental  conse- 
quences.") Can  things  be  necessarily  produced  that 
were  not  necessarily  caused  ?  If  Prof.  Haeckel  is 
right,  then  nature,  (including  things  "of  necessity 
produced  " )  under  necessity  and  without  Will,  puts 
under  necessity  and  without  Will,  all  in  nature.  If 
nature  is  thus  necessary,  and  evolution  is  a  way  of 
nature,  then  all  evolution  is  necessary.  Things  evolve 
because  they  must ;  they  cannot  be  otherwise  than 
they  are.  Whatever  is,  is  inevitable.  No  intelligent 
Will  started  the  universe,  and  there  is  no  intelligent 


Necessity  in  Evolution.  193 

Will  to  stop  it.  The  abstract  must  become  concrete 
— the  absolute  must  become  the  conditioned.  Mr. 
Spencer  states  the  doctrine  of  necessity  quite  as 
sharply  as  Prof.  H.  He  says,  "  moral  principles  must 
conform  to  physical  necessities."     (D.  E.,  §  22). 

Morality  is  either  evolved  or  prescribed.  If 
-evolved,  it  is  said  to  be  "  grounded  in  nature,"  and 
is  called  Natural  Morality.  If  morality  is  prescribed, 
it  is  said,  as  blind,  unintelligent  nature  prescribes 
nothing,  "to  claim  supernatural  authority,"  and  is 
called  Supernatural  Morality.  If  nature  is  necessary, 
then  the  supernature  admitted  by  Mr.  Spencer,  so 
far  as  it  is  not  self-limited  in  nature,  must  be  free. 
Therefore  Morality  is  either  evolved  as  necessary  in 
nature,  or  prescribed  as  free  in  supernature.  In  evo- 
lution, as  nothing  cannot  evolve  something,  some- 
thing must,  from  itself,  evolve  something  like  itself 
as  the  necessary  from  the  necessary  ;  for,  if  unlike 
itself,  it  is  something  evolved  from  nothing;  which 
is  impossible.  All  evolution  is  under  Will,  or  not 
under  Will ;  if  not  under  Will,  it  is  necessary  ;  if 
under  Will,  evolution  is  only  the  method  of  free 
Will. 

But,  according  to  the  theory  of  natural  evolution, 
the  homogeneous  must  be  unstable ;  the  instability  of 
the  homogeneous  must  differentiate  into  the  hetero- 
geneous ;  the  dissipation  of  motion  must  integrate 
matter ;  effects  must  follow  causes ;  and  causes  must 
multiply  effects.  Xow,  where  is  there  enough  free- 
dom of  action  in  all  this,  for  that  free  action  called 
moral  action  ?  But  let  us  say  in  passing,  that  what 
is  must  to  human  limitations  is  not  must  to  unlimited 
superhuman  Power. 
13 


194       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 


Second. — All  so-called  Natural  Morality  is  an  evo- 
lution. What  is  morality?  Morality  is  right  con- 
duct. What  makes  conduct  right?  Mr.  Spencer 
says  it  is  the  "  adjustment  of  the  acts  to  ends."  (D. 
E.,  §  2.)  But  how  is  the  adjustment  to  be  made,  and 
who  is  to  make  it?  How  are  we  to  answer  this 
question?  Adjustment  implies  personal  intelligence 
and  power. 

The  definition  of  conduct  which  emerges  is  either 
— acts  adjusted  to  ends,  or  else — the  adjustment  of 
acts  to  ends ;  according  as  we  contemplate  the 
formed  body  of  acts,  or  think  of  the  form  alone. 
And  conduct  in  its  full  acceptation  must  be  taken  as 
comprehending  all  adjustments  of  acts  to  ends,  from 
the  simplest  to  the  most  complex,  whatever  their 
special  natures  and  whether  considered  separately  or 
in  their  totality. 

"  Our  preparatory  step  must  be  to  study  the  evolu- 
tion of  conduct."  (D.  E.,  §  2.)  Moral  conduct  is 
either  prescribed  unevolved,  or  evolved  unprescribed 
or  evolved  as  prescribed.  If  prescribed  unevolved, 
or  evolved  as  prescribed,  it  is  prescribed  by  superhu- 
man personal  Will  to  human  personal  Will.  If  evolved 
unprescribed,  it  implies  impersonality,  and  excludes 
Will.  Prof.  Hasckel  and  other  materialists  teach,  that 
nature  evolves  unprescribed,  or  in  Prof.  H.'s  phrase, 
"  with  no  plan  drawn  up  beforehand."  Mr.  Spencer 
says,  as  we  have  seen,  that  "  Moral  phenomena  are 
phenomena  of   evolution." 

But  the  whole  terminology  of  the  evolution  theory 
indicates  its  origin  in  materialistic  philosophy.  "  The 
instability  of   the  homogeneous "—"  the  integration 


Necessity  in  Evolution.  195 

of  matter  is  the  dissipation  of  motion  "  and  so  on, 
show  that  matter  only  is  in  the  mind  of  the  evolu- 
tionist. When  it  was  extended  over  the  whole  field 
of  the  universe,  either  evolutionary  terminology 
must  have  a  secondary  and  figurative  meaning  as 
applied  to  the  sphere  of  mind,  or  mind  itself  must 
be  materialized  ;  that  this  was  Mr.  Spencer's  conclu- 
sion we  shall  see  further  on.  But  whether  moral 
conduct  is  under  nature  or  supernature  or  both,  in 
Mr.  Spencer's  opinion,  it  is  an  evolution.  But  if 
conduct  is  an  evolution  and  evolution  is  necessary, 
then  conduct  is  necessary,  and  therefore  not  under 
moral  authority  or  moral  responsibility.  But,  it  is 
not  clear  how  conduct,  which  is  an  act  of  Will,  can 
be  strictly  under  the  laws  of  evolution  where  there 
is  no  Will.  And  to  apply  evolution  to  moral  conduct 
seems  to  be  forcing  the  theory  ;  but  for  the  present 
let  us  consider  it  as  a  source  of  moral  conduct,  as  is 
claimed  for  it. 

Third. — Therefore,  all  so-called  Natural  Morality 
is  a  necessary  evolution.  In  the  end  it  will  be  evi- 
dent that,  as  to  this  philosophy,  the  conduct  called 
Natural  Morality  is  not  only  an  evolution,  as  specially 
taught  by  Mr.  Spencer,  but  that  it  is  a  necessary  evo- 
lution, as  taught  by  both  Mr.  Spencer  and  Prof. 
Hasckel.  This  conclusion  is  reached  by  the  argu- 
ment already  given  ;  and  will  now  be  confirmed  bv 
that  which  is  added.  Evolution  is  either  natural  or 
supernatural.  If  natural,  then,  as  nature,  according 
to  Prof.  Hseckel,  has  no  method  or  plan,  natural  evo- 
lution has  no  method  or  plan.  If  natural  evo- 
lution has  no  method   or  plan,  then  moral  conduct 


196        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

grounded  in  nature  can  have  no  method  or  plan.  If 
moral  conduct,  grounded  in  nature,  has  no  method  or 
plan,  then  Mr.  Spencer's  definition  of  ethical  conduct, 
as  "  acts  adjusted  to  ends,''  is  impossible.  For, 
"  adjustment  of  acts  to  ends,"  implies  a  method  or 
plan  in  nature,  which  Prof.  Hseckel  denies.  Now 
either  Prof.  Hseckel  errs  in  denying  method  or  plan 
to  creation,  or  Mr.  Spencer  errs  in  defining  conduct 
as  "acts  adjusted  to  ends."  If  there  is  no  method  or 
plan  of  adjustment  in  an  all-including  creation,  there 
can  be  no  method  or  plan  of  adjustment  in  a  speci- 
ally included  conduct.  But,  if  there  is  Will — intelli- 
gence—  adjustment  of  acts  to  ends,  in  the  lower 
sphere  of  conduct,  why  is  there  not  Will — intelli- 
gence—  adjustment  of  acts  to  ends  in  the  higher 
sphere  of  nature?  If  there  is  no  plan — no  adjustment 
of  acts  to  ends  in  universal  nature,  as  Prof.  H.  teaches, 
how  can  there  be  any  adjustment  of  acts  to  ends  in 
particular  nature  of  conduct,  as  Mr.  Spencer  teaches? 
To  Prof.  H.  the  absence  of  "  plan  in  creation "  is 
the  correlative  presence  of  Necessity.  He  sees  neces- 
sity where  he  sees  no  plan.  In  this  doctrine  of  a 
necessary  nature,  all  materialistic  evolutionists  agree. 
Dr.  Maudsley  (Body  and  Will,  p.  124)  says,  "It  is  a 
law  of  Nature,  and  therefore  a  necessity,  that  the 
sun  rises  day  after  day."  He  does  not  account  for 
the  law  of  nature,  and  so  he  does  not  define  necessity. 
Mr.  Spencer  says  (D.  E.,  §22),  "Throughout  the 
whole  of  human  conduct,  necessary  relations  of 
causes  and  effects  prevail."  Again  :  "  The  connexion 
between  cause  and  effect  is  one  that  cannot  be  estab- 
lished, or  altered,  by  any  authority  external  to  the  phe- 


No  Authority  in  Evolution.  197 

nomena  t/ia/zsetves."  (Id:)  It  is  sufficient  that  the 
authority  be  internal  to  the  phenomena :  but  whence 
the  phenomena?  Mr.  Spencer  says  (D.  E.,  §  22), 
"  Moral  principles  must  conform  to  physical  neces- 
sities." For  moral  principles  to  conform  to  physical 
necessities,  they  must  be,  not  only  numerically  dis- 
tinct, but  they  must  be  essentially  different.  But  Mr. 
Spencer  makes  them  psychologically  the  same.  If 
matter  evolves  mind,  or,  if  physical  necessities  evolve 
moral  principles,  as  we  understand  Mr.  Spencer  to 
teach,  they  are  conformed  in  the  very  process  of 
evolution.  Neither  human  will  nor  human  intelli- 
gence have  any  conforming  to  do.  Moral  principles 
are  so-called  as  a  designation  of  a  special  phase  or 
manifestation  of  physical  necessities.  Essentially 
they  are  the  same.  Principle  is  not  necessity,  nor  is 
necessity  principle.  If  principle  is  derived  from  un- 
derived  necessity,  then  it  is  not  principle,  but  only  a 
manifestation  or  mode  of  necessity.  If  principle  is 
underived  then  underived  moral  principle  cannot 
conform  to  underived  physical  necessity.  The  eter- 
nal cannot  conform  to  the  eternal.  There  is  no  con- 
formity between  equals  or  co-ordinates.  But  Mr. 
Spencer,  in  making  "moral  phenomena  the  phenom- 
ena of  evolution,"  and  in  making  evolution  an  unde- 
rived, unintelligent,  unconscious,  impersonal,  neces- 
sary process,  includes  moral  principles  in  physical 
necessities ;  and  to  speak  of  moral  principles  as  con- 
forming to  ph}-sical  necessity,  of  which  it  is  already 
only  a  mode,  is  a  distinction  without  a  difference. 
If  moral  principle  and  physical  necessity  are  the 
same,  there  is  identity  ;  but  there  can  be  no  conformity 


198       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

of  the  same  to  the  same.  If  there  must  be  a  conform- 
ity between  the  two  that  there  is  not  in  the  nature  of 
things,  they  must  be  different  in  kind,  and,  if  differ- 
ent, there  is  no  nexus  of  necessity  between  them. 
The  underived  is  necessary  to  the  derived,  as  the 
foundation  is  necessary  to  the  superstructure  ;  for 
without  the  underived  the  derived  could  not  be. 

If  there  can  be  no  evolution  with  Will  and  without 
necessity,  so  there  can  be  no  morality  with  necessity 
and  without  Will.  If  necessity  is  the  basis  of  evolu- 
tion, so  liberty  is  the  basis  of  morality.  If  nature  be 
the  basis  of  a  necessary  evolution,  so  supernature 
must  be  the  basis  of  a  free  morality.  To  define 
nature  is  to  prove  supernature;  for  nature  is  the 
known  and  visible  part  of  supernature,  the  unknown 
and  visible  whole. 

Evolution  as  a  method,  under  intelligent  Will-Power, 
is  free;  but  evolution  under  Power  without  method 
of  intelligent  Will-Power  is  necessary.  Moral  or  free 
conduct  must  be  under  a  method  of  power;  if  not 
under  a  method  of  Power,  human  conduct  is  not 
moral.  The  simple  question  is,  Is  there  Will  in  the 
universe?  Will  that  is  Will,  and  not  a  mere  neces- 
sary energy  of  impulse  ? 

Here  the  alternative  is  fully  presented  of  plan  or 
necessity.  According  to  Prof.  Hasckel  there  is  no 
intelligent,  prescribed,  created  plan  or  method  of 
evolution,  but  a  direct,  sharp,  unequivocal  doctrine 
of  a  necessity  in  all  things.  If  evolution  as  a  method 
of  Power,  is  denied,  this  system  of  necessary  materi- 
alism is  consistent  in  matter,  whatever  may  be  said 
of  it  as  to  mind.     Extracts  from  the  "  Data  of  Ethics" 


Necessity  in  Evolution.  199 


show  how  much  the  idea  of  necessity  runs  through 
Mr.  Spencer's  presentation  of  the  theory  of  evolu- 
tion and  of  evolutionary  morality.  That  theory  is 
understood  to  hold,  that  an  unintelligent,  unconscious 
and  impersonal,  natural  Power  evolves  the  universe 
of  mind  and  matter;  not  because  it  intends  it,  wills 
it,  or  desires  it,  but  because  it  must.  The  Power 
to  evolve  Nature  is  held  to  be  this  powerless  Power 
of  necessity — powerless  because  it  has  no  power  to 
do  otherwise  than  as  it  does ;  and  that  any  system  of 
Natural  Morality  must  have  in  it  this  element  of 
Necessity. 

According  to  the  theory  of  atheistic  evolution, 
Nature  works  only  by  necessary  evolution,  without 
Will ;  Necessity  ignores  Will,  and  Will  ignores 
Necessity.  "  The  Power  manifested  throughout  Evo- 
lution "  is  Will  in  itself,  and  knows  no  Will  out 
of  itself.  If  necessary  Nature  evolves  Will  as  an 
impulse  of  desire,  it  cannot  evolve  the  decision  of 
that  Will  without  destroying  the  Will  itself.  Will, 
to  be  Will,  must  be  free.  Recognizing  Will,  moral 
conduct  is  commanded  as  free,  and  is  not  evolved  as 
necessary.  So  far  as  Will  is  ignored,  moral  conduct 
is  evolved  as  necessary  and  is  not  commanded  as 
free  ;  and  just  as  conduct  is  not  free,  so  it  is  not  moral. 

Morality  grounded  in  nature  is  called,  as  we  have 
said,  natural  morality,  and  is  an  evolution  either 
natural  or  supernatural.  All  evolution  with  plan  in 
nature  is  supernatural  to  nature.  All  evolution  with- 
out plan  is  natural,  and  therefore  necessary.  All 
evolution  without  plan  is  necessary  rather  than  con- 
tingent,   for    contingent    evolution    is    no    evolution. 


200       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

"  The  homogeneous  must  lapse  into  the  heterogen- 
eous."    (F.  P.,  §155.) 

Man,  in  "  Morality  grounded  in  nature,"  called 
Natural  Morality,  by  observing  what  Nature  does 
under  certain  circumstances,  infers  what,  in  nature, 
is  best  for  him  to  do  under  other  and  similar  circum- 
stances. In  morality  "  claiming  supernatural  author- 
ity," man  not  only  observes  what  nature  does,  and 
reflects  upon  what  nature,  as  a  reflection  of  superna- 
ture,  makes  it  wise  for  him  to  do,  but,  looking  beyond, 
around  and  above  Nature,  he  calls  directly  to  the 
omnipresent  Parent,  Lord,  what  wilt  thou  have  me 
to  do?  In  the  latter  case  a  moral  law  is  prescribed 
by  authority ;  in  the  former,  man  infers,  not  a  law, 
but  a  certain  necessity  of  conduct !  But  natural 
necessity  is  not  natural  morality.  Morality  is  obedi- 
ence to  moral  law  ;  but  evolution  is  not  obedience — 
it  is  only  the  process  of  a  method.  What  is  called 
Natural  Morality  is  the  conformity  of  the  conduct 
of  rational  beings  to  "  the  constitution  of  things." 
It  is  intelligent,  conscious,  personal  man,  watching 
unintelligent,  unconscious,  impersonal  phenomena, 
rather  than  the  Power  behind  the  Phenomena. 

In  evolution  force  is  force.  It  makes  no  essential 
distinction  between  mind-force  and  matter-force.  It 
distinguishes  mind-force  from  matter-force  only  in 
its  degree  and  attributes.  In  poetic  language,  these 
matter-forces  may  be  said  to  have  moral  and  immoral 
behaviour — they  have  their  likes  and  dislikes — their 
sovereignty  and  subordination.  It  is  said  that  chlo- 
rate of  potash  when  heated  alone  will  explode  like 
gunpowder;  and  yet,  when  heated  in  the  presence  of 


What  is  Moral  Authority  ?  201 

a  black  oxide  of  manganese,  it  gasifies  in  quietness 
and  safety.  The  chlorate  of  potash  behaves  in  the 
presence  of  the  manganese  as  if  it  knew  the  presence 
of  a  master.  Still,  it  is  only  unintelligent  force 
watching  and  subjugating  unintelligent  force.  But 
will  it  be  contended  that  mind-force  watches  the  phe- 
nomena of  matter-force  only  to  avoid,  or  make  them 
available?  Is  mind  simply  the  manganese  watching 
the  heated  potash?  Is  it  simply  one  intelligent  force 
watching  and  manipulating  all  unintelligent  forces? 
Are  the  watched  and  the  watcher  both  only  different 
modes  of  matter?  Is  human  personality  only  a 
name  for  a  material  evolution  to  be  obliterated  in  a 
material  dissolution  ? 

Mr.  Spencer  himself  says,  in  the  Preface  to  his 
"  Data  of  Ethics,"  "  What  differences  exist  between 
Natural  Morality  and  supernatural  Morality,  it  has 
become  the  policy  to  exaggerate  into  fundamental 
antagonisms." 

The  fundamental  antagonism  is  not  between  two 
moralities  ;  but  between  the  two  sources  of  authority 
—  nature  and  supernature  —  of  the  one  morality. 
Authority  must  be  of  one  above,  over  one  below  ; 
and  unless  there  be  supernature,  there  can  be  no 
authorit}7  over  nature;  for  nature  cannot  be  superior 
to  itself.  If  natural  morality  is  the  natural  manifes- 
tation of  supernatural  authority,  these  fundamental 
antagonisms  become  fundamental  agreements.  We 
have  not  two  moralities,  or  two  systems  of  morality, 
or  two  authorities  of  morality.  The  authority  is  one 
and  the  morality  is  one.  The  methods  of  proof  are 
two — the  Natural  and  the  Supernatural — or  the  proof 


202        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

in  evolution  and  the  proof  in  inspired  revelation. 
The  proof  of  moral  rules  and  ends  in  nature,  by 
evolution,  is  called  Natural  Morality.  This  method 
of  morality  is  agnostic  or  silent  about  the  power  by 
which  evolution  is  evolution. 

Morality  is  called  Natural  Morality  when,  ignoring 
supernatural  authority,  it  claims  to  be  grounded  in 
nature  only.  But,  does  the  grounding  in  nature 
only,  give  morality  a  natural  authority ;  or  does  it 
dispense  with  the  idea  of  authority  altogether,  and 
make  it  a  mere  evolution,  as  inevitable  or  necessary 
as  all  other  evolution  is  claimed  to  be  ?  It  is  calling 
that  natural  morality  which  we  expect  to  show  is,  in 
fact,  supernatural  morality.  It  denies  the  invisible 
part  of  the  visible.  It  denies  the  Factor  in  the  fact, 
the  lawgiver  in  the  Law. 

"  We  have  become  quite  familiar"  says  Mr.  Spen- 
cer, "  with  the  idea  of  an  evolution  of  structures, 
throughout  the  ascending  types  of  animals.  To  a 
considerable  degree  we  have  become  familiar  with 
the  thought  that  an  evolution  of  functions  has  gone 
on  pari  passu  with  the  evolution  of  structures.  Now 
advancing  a  step,  we  have  to  frame  a  conception  of 
the  evolution  of  conduct,  as  correlated  with  this 
evolution  of  structures  and  functions."  (D.  E.,  §  3.) 
"  Conduct  is  acts  adjusted  to  ends."  (D.  E.,  §  2.) 
"  Acts  are  called  good  or  bad,  according  as  they  are 
well  or  ill  adjusted  to  ends."  {lb.)  "  Evolution 
becomes  the  highest  possible  when  the  conduct  sim- 
ultaneously achieves  the  greatest  totality  of  life  in 
self,  in  offspring,  and  in  fellow  men  ;  so  here  we  see 
that  the  conduct  called  good  rises  to  the  conduct 


Unplanned  Nature  is  Necessary.  203 

conceived  as  best,  when  it  fulfils  all  three  classes  of 
ends  at  the  same  time."  (Id.,  §  8.)  This  is  natural 
morality.  It  is  human  acts  adjusted  to  human  ends. 
But  acts,  ends,  and  adjustments  are  evolutions ;  and, 
if  evolutions,  they  are  necessary. 

Some  contend  that  evolution  is  the  free  creative 
method  of  an  impersonal  Creator.  This  would  imply 
an  impersonal  intelligence,  and  an  impersonal  Will, 
and  an  impersonal  "  Power  manifested  through  evo- 
lution work."  From  the  consciousness  of  our  own 
personal  Will  and  intelligence  we  can  form  no  idea 
of  impersonal  Will  and  intelligence ;  and  so,  in  all  ages, 
human  personality  has  thought  of  a  superhuman  per- 
sonality, to  account  for  its  own  personality. 

Evolutionary  necessity  being  admitted  or  proved, 
warrants  the  direct  conclusion  that  evolutionary 
conduct  called  Natural  Morality,  being  evolved  like 
gravitation,  electricity,  and  everything  else  in  "  the 
Constitution  of  things,,'  should  be  called  mere  natural 
phenomena,  not  natural  morality.  Where  there  is 
no  Will,  there  is  no  morality — no  one  to  command 
and  no  one  to  obey — and  no  responsibility,  either 
personal  or  civil. 

If,  according  to  Prof.  Hseckel,  that  which  is  with 
out  method  or  plan  is  necessary,  then  all  natural 
evolution,  being  the  evolution  of  a  necessary  nature 
without  method  or  plan,  as  distinguished  from  super- 
natural evolution  with  a  method  or  plan  is  neces- 
sary evolution.  The  alternative  is  Will  or  Neces- 
sity—  nature  under  supernatural  Will,  or  nature 
under  natural  necessity.  If  nature  is  necessary,  and 
if  nature  is  all,  then  natural  morality  is  necessary  in 


204       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

the  agent,  necessary  in  causes,  and  necessary  in 
effects.  If  anything  is  necessary  in  the  universe, 
everything  is  necessary — that  is,  all  is  necessary  or 
nothing  is  necessary.  The  most  pressing  question  in 
the  evolution  of  morality  is,  Is  man  so  far  a  free  or 
moral  agent  as  to  enable  him  to  adjust  the  acts  of 
his  conduct  to  his  own  and  the  happiness  of  others, 
as  an  end  ?  Has  he  a  Will  so  free  that  it  is  in  his 
power  to  obey  or  to  disobey  moral  authority  ?  Ad- 
justment is  an  act  of  Will,  extrinsic  or  intrinsic.  The 
still  earlier  question  in  this  agnostic  evolutionary 
philosophy  is,  Is  there  any  authority,  strictly  so-called, 
in  the  universe?  or  are  the  acts  of  man's  conduct 
necessary  evolutions,  making  his  Will  identical  with 
necessary  desires  or  motives  ?  How  are  we  to  under- 
stand Mr.  Spencer  when  he  says  that  "  every  one  is 
at  liberty  to  do  what  he  desires  to  do  (supposing  that 
there  are  no  external  hindrances)  all  admit ;  though 
people  of  confused  ideas  commonly  supposed  this  to 
be  the  thing  denied?"     (i  Psy.,  §  219.) 

The  Will  which  he  thus  admits  to  be  free,  his  sys- 
tem proves  to  be  necessary.  The  moral  liberty  here 
admitted,  seems  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  evolu- 
tionary necessity  afterwards  affirmed  by  Mr.  Spencer, 
when  he  says :  "  But,  that  every  one  is  at  liberty  to 
desire  or  not  to  desire,  which  is  the  real  proposition 
in  the  dogma  of  free  Will,  is  negatived  as  much  by 
the  analysis  of  consciousness  as  by  the  contents  of 
the  preceeding  chapters."  {lb.)  Memory,  Reason 
and  Feeling  simultaneously  arise  as  the  automatic 
actions  become  complex,  infrequent  and  hesitating; 
and  Will,  arising  at  the  same  time,  is  necessitated  by 


The  Will  According  to  Spencer.  205 

these  conditions."  {lb.,  §  217.)  He  says,  "  until  there 
is  motive  (mark  the  word)  there  is  no  Will.  That  is 
to  say,  Will  is  no  more  an  existence  separate  from 
the  predominating-  feeling  than  a  King  is  an  existence 
separate  from  the  man  occupying  the  throne."  {lb., 
§  220.) 

"  Moral  principles  "  and  "  physical  necessities  "  be- 
long to  contradictory  systems  of  truth.  Principles 
are  the  beginnings  of  things,  and  synonymous  with 
cause.  A  moral  principle  cannot  be  a  physical  nec- 
essity, nor  can  a  physical  necessity  be  a  moral  prin- 
ciple. The  terms  represent  ideas  radically  different. 
If  a  moral  principle  be  a  necessary  evolution  of 
matter,  then,  though  it  may  be  called  a  necessary 
evolution,  it  cannot  be  called  a  conformity.  The 
potter  may  form  the  clay,  but  the  clay  does  not  con- 
form to  the  potter. 

If  we  are  to  speak  of  the  evolution  of  morality  as 
Natural  Morality,  then,  what  is  its  authority  ?  Can 
Nature  authorize  itself?  This  depends  upon  the 
question  ;  Is  there  Supernature  ?  If  there  is  super- 
nature,  then  supernature  is  the  authority  for  Natural 
Morality,  or  it  has  none.  But  as  morality  without 
authority  is  no  morality,  so,  as  nothing  can  be  author- 
ity to  itself,  Nature  is  not  authority  as  such  to  nature, 
for  natural  morality  to  be  morality,  it  must  have 
supernatural  authority ;  and  as  the  authority  of 
nature  is  supernature,  so,  for  Natural  Morality  there 
must  be  Supernature.  If  conduct  called  natural 
morality  be  only  an  evolution,  but  a  necessary  evolu- 
tion, it  is  evident,  as  there  can  be  no  authority  over 
necessity,  that, 


2o6       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

First. — All  necessary  evolution  is  without  (i)  moral 
authority.  What  is  authority  ?  If  we  understand 
Mr.  Spencer,  he  ignores  all  authority.  He  says  (D. 
E.,  §  22),  "  The  connexion  between  cause  and  effect 
is  one  that  cannot  be  established,  or  altered,  by  any 
authority  external  to  the  phenomena  themselves." 
But  can  there  be  any  authority  internal  to  the  phe- 
nomena ? 

Authority  as  authority  is  underived  personal  power, 
prescribing  personal  conduct.  It  is  not  between  per- 
sonal equals,  or  between  impersonal  things.  "It  is  exclu- 
sively personal.  There  is  no  authority  in  impersonal 
power  over  persons ;  or  in  personal  power  over  im- 
personal things,  or  in  the  power  of  impersonal  things 
over  impersonal  things.  Authority  is  prescribed  Will. 
Unprescribed  Will  is  power,  bnt  not  authority. 
Though  the  power  to  originate  is  the  power  to  control, 
yet,  authority  is  original  power  over  the  conduct  of 
free  persons,  as  distinguished  from  the  original  power 
over  the  phenomena  of  necessary  things.  Underived 
personal  Will  is  authority  over  the  personal  Will  de- 
rived from  the  underived. 

Agnosticism  teaches  a  necessary,  material  system, 
and  denies  a  free,  moral  system.  Mr.  Spencer  says, 
"  We  have  seen  that  during  the  progress  of  animate 
existence,  the  later-evolved,  more  compound  and  more 
representative  feelings,  serving  to  adjust  the  conduct 
to  more  distant  and  general  needs,  have  all  along 
had  an  authority  as  guides  superior  to  that  of  the 
earlier  and  simpler  feeling — excluding  cases  in  which 
these  last  are  intense.  This  superior  authority, 
unrecognizable  by   lower  types  of   creatures  which 


What  is  Moral  Authority  ?  207 

cannot  generalize,  and  little  recognizable  by  prima- 
tive  men,  who  have  but  feeble  powers  of  generaliza- 
tion, has  become  distinctly  recognized  as  civilization 
and  accompanying  mental  development  have  gone 
on.  Accumulated  experiences  have  produced  the 
consciousness  that  guidance  by  feelings  which  refer 
to  remote  and  general  results,  is  usually  more  con- 
ducive to  welfare  than  guidance  by  feelings  to  be 
immediately  gratified.  For  what  is  the  common 
character  of  the  feelings  that  prompt  honesty,  truth- 
fulness, diligence,  providence,  etc.,  which  men  habit- 
ually find  to  be  better  prompters  than  the  appetites 
and  simple  impulses?  They  are  all  complex,  re-rep- 
resentative feelings,  occupied  with  the  future  rather 
than  the  present.  The  idea  of  authoritativeness  has 
therefore  come  to  be  connected  with  feelings  having 
these  traits;  the  implication  being  that  the  lower  and 
simpler  feelings  are  without  authority.  And  this 
idea  of  authoritativeness  is  one  element  in  the  abstract 
consciousness  of  duty."  (D.  E.,  §  46.)  The  power 
that  produces  a  tree  does  not,  as  authority,  command 
the  tree  to  come  or  to  live.  In  other  words,  neither 
production  nor  sustenance  is  authority,  because  pro- 
duction and  sustenance,  in  materialism,  are  not  pre- 
scribed. Superhuman  power,  as  Creator,  produces 
things;  and  superhuman  power,  as  Authority,  com- 
mands or  prescribes  its  personal  creatures  to  produce 
actions  of  their  own. 

Authority  is  said  to  be  power  over  conduct.  But, 
is  there  any  such  power?  If  not,  let  us  change  all 
our  moral  ideas  and  words.  If  there  is  any  control 
over  conduct,  let  us  know  what  it  is.     Evolution  is 


2o8       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

ceaseless  production,  and  nothing  but  production. 
It  produces  everything,  but  commands  nothing,  unless 
production  is  command.  But,  if  there  is  anything 
that  may  be  called  Authority  in  the  universe,  let  us 
define  and  obey  it;  if  it  is  supernatural,  let  us  know 
and  reverence  it.  By  admitting  authority,  we  admit 
responsibility,  and  by  denying  either  we  deny  both  ; 
and  so,  all  morality,  whether  natural  or  supernatural. 
Unphilosophical  conclusions,  negativing  authority 
and  responsibility,  leave  conduct  without  a  guide. 
What  our  souls  are  to  our  bodies,  supernature  is  to 
nature ;  therefore,  to  take  supernature  out  of  nature, 
is  to  leave  society  and  individual  virtue  to  ask  guid- 
ance of  a  silent,  awful,  deaf  corpse.  We  contend  for 
nature  —  for  supernature  in  nature  —  and  for  per- 
sonality to  that  supernature.  As  authority  is  per- 
sonal, if  impersonal  nature  has  a  morality,  it  has  a 
morality  without  authority.  But  basing  morality  on 
authority,  as  there  can  be  but  one  undisputed  author- 
ity in  the  universe,  so  there  can  be  but  one  undis- 
puted morality  in  the  universe.  As  said  before,  natu- 
ral consequences  of  conduct  are  the  exponents  of 
supernatural  authority.  Natural  consequences  are 
from  supernatural  power.  Morality  is,  therefore, 
natural  morality  on  the  side  of  natural  consequences, 
and  supernatural  morality  on  the  side  of  supernatural 
authority.  Authority  precedes  and  consequences 
follow  conduct. 

There  is  nothing  in  an  impersonal  effect  that  we 
are  accustomed  to  think  of  as  personal  authority. 
Authority  speaks  before  conduct ;  effect  speaks  after. 
Authority  prescribes  what  ought  to  be  done  ;  effects 


Authority  and  Necessity  Inconsistent.       209 

subscribe  what  has  been  done.  Authority  in  sover- 
eign sympathy  commands;  effect  in  silent  apathy 
records.  Authority  gives  a  law  ;  effect  is  the  occa- 
sion of  an  inference.  Authority  says,  if  you  are 
wise  you  will  not  strike  the  rock  with  your  hand  ; 
effect,  holding  up  its  bleeding  hand,  says,  I  was  not 
wise,  and  I  struck. 

As  in  materialistic  necessity  there  is  no  such  thing 
as  moral  conduct,  the  words  "  morality,"  "authority," 
"  responsibility,"  in  the  future  of  evolutionary  term- 
inology would  cease  to  be  used ;  for  Will,  as  we 
know  it,  being  no  longer  admitted  in  human  psy- 
chology, there  would  be  no  ideas  for  these  words  to 
represent. 

But  Natural  Morality,  if  any,  as  it  includes  neces- 
sity, excludes  from  conduct  not  only  all  authority 
over  freedom,  but  all  moral  freedom  itself.  All 
necessary  morality  is  without  authority.  Necessity 
excludes  authority.  That  which  must  be,  needs  no 
authority.  An  unintelligent,  impersonal  constitution 
of  things  may  compel  but  can  have  no  authority  over 
an  intelligent,  personal  being.  This  whole  discussion 
brings  us  into  the  presence  of  the  old  question  of 
liberty  under  supernatural  authority  or  no  liberty 
under  natural  necessity.  Morality  is  human  conduct 
free  under  authority  ;  if  it  is  inevitable  under  neces- 
sity it  is  not  morality.  Authority  2-equires,  but  does 
not  evolve ;  Necessity  evolves  but  does  not  require. 
Human  conduct  required  or  prescribed  by  authority, 
is  morality  ;  if  conduct  is  not  required  or  prescribed 
by  authority,  whatever  else  it  may  be,  it  is  not 
morality.  If  conduct,  evolved  under  Necessity,  be 
14 


2 1  o       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

morality,  then  what  is  conduct  required  under  author- 
ity ?  Is  that  morality  too  ?  or  is  there  no  authority  ? 
If  conduct  free  under  authority  and  evolved  under 
necessity,  both  be  morality,  there  must  be  some  har- 
monizing power  ab  extra,  to  make  them  consistent ; 
making  that  necessary  which  it  authoritatively  com- 
mands, and  authoritatively  commanding  what  it 
makes  necessary. 

There  is  no  authority,  as  such,  in  consequences. 
Consequences  may  expose  to  us  the  absence  of  wis- 
dom in  our  past  acts,  and  warn  us  not  to  repeat  (as 
if  the  acts  could  be  repeated)  the  acts  which  caused 
the  consequences;  but  they  prescribe  or  predict 
nothing  as  to  the  other  and  different  acts  we  may 
commit  in  the  future.  But  if  conduct  be  an  evolu- 
tion, it  can  never  be  repeated,  for  evolution  never 
repeats  anything.  From  sameness  it  ever  works 
towards  difference — from  the  homogeneous  to  the 
heterogeneous.  As  evolution  never  repeats  the  past, 
it  can  never  warn  of  the  future.  It  cannot  tell  us  the 
new  things  it  is  ever  to  do.  Its  necessity  to  differen- 
tiate its  work — its  committal  to  perpetual  heterogen- 
eity, makes  it  valueless  to  experience.  It  is  useless 
for  the  experience  of  consequences  to  warn  us  not  to 
repeat  acts  that  we  call  bad  ;  because  evolution 
assures  us  that  in  its  necessity  to  go  on,  neither 
conduct,  nor  consequences  can  be  repeated.  The 
office  of  evolution  is  to  manifest  results,  not  to  pre- 
scribe moral  law. 

Are  we  to  understand,  when  morality,  claiming 
supernatural  authority,  is  contrasted  with  morality 
grounded  in  nature,  that  morality  under  authority  is 


Facts  as  such  not  Authority.  2  1 1 

supernatural,  and  morality  not  under  authority,  is 
natural?  Again  we  ask,  what  is  authority  ?  Author- 
ity is  the  supremacy  of  personal  Will  over  personal 
Will,  and  is  more  than  the  mere  presence  of  Power, 
and  more  than  the  manifestation  of  Power  through 
impersonal  phenomena ;  though  it  may  certify  itself 
through  these  manifestations.  Authority  is  the  sov- 
ereignty of  personal  Power,  commanding  obedience 
of  all  persons  subject  to  its  control. 

According  to  Mr.  Spencer,  the  only  authority  is 
the  lesson  of  facts,  or  the  inferences  of  experience. 
But  this  is  not  authority  as  we  have  been  accustomed 
to  think  it.  Authority  is  a  personal  government. 
We  attribute  an  impersonal  authority  to  the  imper- 
sonal sovereignty  of  the  state  ;  but  the  authority  is 
only  so  in  a  figurative  sense,  as  it  represents  the 
aggregate  of  personality  in  the  state. 

But  it  may  be  asked  :  What  is  the  need  of  super- 
natural authority,  or  authority  of  any  kind  ?  Why 
may  not  conduct  be  reasonable  conduct,  under  neither 
authority  nor  responsibility?  If  the  individual  rea- 
son is  competent  to  decide  upon  a  moral  authority, 
why  is  it  not  competent  to  decide  upon  moral  ques- 
tions? Why  is  not  the  reasonableness  of  an  act  a 
sufficient  authority  for  the  act?  To  what  else,  they 
say,  but  to  reason  can  a  man  turn  in  the  moral  emer- 
gencies of  conduct — there  are  no  Urim  and  Thum- 
mim  to  consult?  If,  according  to  St.  Paul,  "the 
Gentiles  which  have  not  the  law,  do  by  Nature  the 
things  contained  in  the  law,"  why  may  not  all,  like 
these  Gentiles,  take  the  nature  of  things,  discoverable 
by  reason,  as  all  needful  authority  ?     Authority,  it  is 


2 1 2        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

said,  cannot  make  that  right  which,  in  its  nature,  is 
wrong ;  nor  that  wrong  which,  in  its  nature,  is  right. 

It  may  be  asked,  why  not  reject  the  idea  of  author- 
ity altogether;  or,  if  there  must  be  authority,  why  is 
not  rightness  its  own  authority?  But,  even  if  a 
right  act  needs  no  other  authority  than  its  own 
righteousness,  whence  that  righteousness  ?  Personal 
rights  are  inherent  in  personal  relations.  But  whence 
the  relations?  They  are  neither  eternal  nor  self-ex- 
istent, nor  are  the  inherent  rights  essential  to  them 
either  eternal  or  self-existent.  Eternal  justice  or  right 
is  a  high-sounding  phrase ;  but,  in  the  nature  of 
things,  there  can  be  no  justice  without  relations,  and 
evolutionary  relations  are  not  eternal.  If  relations 
are  derived,  so  are  the  inherent  rights  essential  to 
them.  Relations  and  rights  come  together  one  with 
the  other.  Rights  are  either  absolute  or  relative.  If 
absolute,  they  are  commanded  because  they  are  right ; 
if  relative,  then  the}'  are  right  because  they  are  com- 
manded. Only  underived  existence  is  absolute  ;  only 
derived  existence  is  relative.  The  absolute  has  no 
rights,  for  no  one  can  possibly  do  it  any  wrong. 
Rights  come  and  end  with  relations. 

Personal  rights  in  what  is  called  the  nature  of 
things  are  relative,  not  absolute,  because  no  solitary 
person  has  rights ;  and  they  are  personal,  because 
such  things  as  trees  and  stones  have  no  rights  either 
as  to  each  other,  or  as  to  persons.  If  brutes  have 
rights,  man  does  not  respect  them  as  rights,  even 
their  right  to  live.  Personal  rights  which  are  essen- 
tial to  personal  relations,  are  the  very  purpose— aim  — 
ethics— necessity — congruity — exponent  of  the  rela- 


Is  Nature  Intelligent  or  Unintelligent  9     21 


tions,  and  exhibit  their  own  laws  of  essential  harmon- 
ies. One  cannot  be  related  to  himself ;  but,  the  coming 
of  two  or  more  people  together,  constitutes  the  rela- 
tion of  many  in  one.  New  mutual  rights  inherent 
in  and  essential  to  the  new  relations  co-exist.  Moral 
conduct,  therefore,  is  obedience  to  authority — the 
authority  of  the  underived  over  the  derived.  Thus, 
whether  authority  be  that  of  impersonal  nature,  as 
some  insist,  or  that  of  a  personal  God,  that  is  right 
which  is  essential  to  the  relation  or  which  this  author- 
ity commands,  and  that  is  wrong  which  it  forbids 
or  which  is  inconsistent  with  the  relation  itself. 

We  never  know  where  a  blind  man  may  step — he 
does  not  know  himself.  As  like  understands  like, 
mind  can  communicate  with  mind.  It  is  only  the 
mind  in  matter  that  our  minds  can  understand.  Hu- 
man intelligence  can  somewhat  understand  the  plans 
of  superhuman  intelligence.  Human  conduct  can  in- 
telligently accommodate  itself  to  Nature  only  as  it 
understands  what  nature  means.  But  for  nature  to 
mean  anything,  it  must  be  intelligent;  and  this, 
materialistic  logic  cannot  admit. 

If  an  impersonal  constitution  of  things,  or  what  is 
called  Nature,  rewards  or  punishes  conduct,  it  does 
so  intelligently  or  unintelligently.  If  Nature  be  in- 
telligent, it  is  personal  (if  external  nature  is  like  the 
nature  within  us),  and  if  personal,  it  is  God.  If  exter- 
nal nature  is  unintelligent,  then  there  is  no  intelligent 
reward  or  punishment  for  human  conduct.  An  unin- 
telligent sequence  to  our  conduct  is  material,  not  mor- 
al. When  we  do  what  we  call  a  good  act,  does  Nature 
blindly  grasp  the  act,  and  do  something,  nut  knowing 


214       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

what  it  does?  Does  Nature  reward  our  actions,  not 
knowing  that  it  rewards?     Does  it  punish  not  know- 
ing that  it  punishes  ?     By  theory,  impersonal  Nature 
has  no  intelligence,  and  does  not  know  what  it  is  do- 
ing, whether  it  is  helping  or  hurting  personal  nature. 
Admitting  that  Nature   knows  what  it  is  about,  and 
that  it  always  works  the  same  knowing  way,  human 
action  might  intelligently  work  to  it.    But  what  is  the 
use  of  human  intelligence  if  there  be  no  superhuman 
intelligence?  How  can  intelligent,  personal  Nature  un- 
derstand the  meaning  of  impersonal  Nature  when  it  has 
no  intelligence  to  mean  anything?     If  Nature  knows 
nothing,  it  cannot  know  when  we  do  a  good  action,  nor 
when  we  do  a  bad  action.     If  Nature  knows  nothing,  it 
strikes  blindly,  both  friends  and  foes.     As  you  find 
intelligence  in  superhuman   Nature,  you   find  God — 
the  human  personality  finds  and  understands  some- 
thing of  the  superhuman  personality.  Personality  can 
communicate  with  personality — this  must  be  admit- 
ted, or  nothing  is  admitted  ;  for   rational  personality 
cannot    communicate   with  irrational    impersonality. 
We  cannot  make  our  minds  known  to  a  tree  or  to  a 
stone,  or  to  "the  constitution  of  things."    These  have 
no  ear  to  hear,  nor  mind  to  know.     The  "  necessary 
consequences"  of  conduct  are  the  only  announcements 
made  by  "  the  constitution  of  things,"  and  this  is  after, 
and    not    before    conduct.     But    as    no    experiences 
are  ever  alike,  the  constitution  of  things  stands  read}' 
to  strike  after,  but  never  to  warn  conduct  before,  of 
its  consequences. 

Authority  is  a  personal  attribute.     I  repeat,  there 
is  power  but  no  authority  in  gravitation,  chemic  affin- 


Authority  is  Personal  not  Impersonal.     215 

ity,  electricity — in  a  word,  in  any  impersonal  force  or 
principle.  Authority  is  the  command  of  a  superior 
to  an  inferior.  Supernature  is  the  authority  of  nature, 
if  nature  has  any  authority  ;  for  nature  cannot  be  over 
itself  and  so  an  authority  unto  itself.  Impersonal  na- 
ture commands  nothing.  Impersonal  power  is  to  ma- 
terial nature  what  personal  authority  is  to  personal 
conduct.  Necessity  is  not  authority.  Advice  is  not 
authority.  The  origin  of  authority  is  will ;  it  is  al- 
ways personal  ;  it  may  be  uniform,  but  it  is  not  nec- 
essary. 

So  far  as  evolution  takes  the  supernatural  out  of  na- 
ture, conduct  in  what  is  called  Natural  Morality,  is 
under  no  authority  ; — nor,  indeed,  in  the  theory  of 
evolution,  is  it  possible  for  it  to  be.  The  idea  of  au- 
thority disappears  altogether  from  evolutionary  spec- 
ulations. Necessity  takes  the  place  of  commands  ; 
impersonal  law  ignores  a  personal  lawgiver;  un- 
planned events  come  along  unbidden ;  a  world  goes 
on  that  never  started  ;  man  is  a  machine  evolved  from 
that  which  was  not  a  machine ;  the  universe  comes 
from  nothing  and  from  nobody  but  itself ;  and,  in  the 
instability  of  the  homogeneous,  itself  that  is,  is  not  the 
itself  that  was,  and  is  to  be.  Succession  is  not  iden- 
tity. 

It  is  said  (Intro.  D.  E.,  xxiii.)  that  "  When  a  man 
eats  because  he  is  hungry,  he  feels  the  power,  but  not 
the  authority  of  appetite.  When,  on  the  other  hand, 
he  refrains  from  vicious  indulgence  because  its  later 
effects  will  be  bad,  or  when  he  takes  a  walk  before 
breakfast  because  he  believes  it  will  conduce  to  his 
health,  though  its  good  effect  will  not  be  immediately 


216       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

apparent,  he  recognizes  and  feels  the  antJiority  of  sani- 
tary rules.  In  these  cases  the  degree  of  dissociation 
between  the  rule  or  principle  recognized  by  the  mind 
and  the  actual  facts  on  which  it  rests  is  but  slight ; 
yet  the  rise  of  authority  is  plainly  visible.  A  rule  of 
conduct  once  established,  the  mind,  working  quite  in- 
dependently of  the  will  of  the  individual,  resents  any 
attempt  to  impugn  its  authoritv-  Naturally  enough, 
seeing  that  to  impugn  its  authority  means  an  unset- 
tlement  of  all  that  the  rule  had  settled." 

In  this  reasoning,  the  more  that  "  the  rule  or  prin- 
ciple is  dissociated  from  the  actual  facts  on  which  it 
is  said  to  rest,"  the  more  authority  arises — full  disso- 
ciation is  full  authority.  And,  e  converso,  there  is  no 
authority  whatever  in  the  complete  identity  of  the 
rule  or  principle  with  the  actual  facts  with  which  it 
is  associated.  In  other  words,  there  is  no  authority 
where  there  is  identity  of  producer  and  produced — 
of  Natura  Naturans  and  Natura  Naturata,  and  there 
is  authority  just  as  the}'  are  distinct.  Authority  is 
defined  by  describing  this  distinction.  In  evolution 
and  evolutionary  morality,  force  and  its  manifesta- 
tions are  one,  under  two  modes. 

All  this  is  only  the  so-called  authority  of  the  wisdom 
of  experience ;  but  experience  is  not  authority.  With 
the  materialist,  experience  is  a  historian,  not  a  prophet ; 
it  is  information,  not  judgment  ;  it  may  persuade,  not 
command ;  at  most  it  is  a  friend,  but  never  a  sover- 
eign. Experience  is  always  after  conduct,  never  before 
it;  it  is  always  different  and  never  the  same  ;  it  is  al- 
ways individual  and  never  common  ;  it  is  always  per- 
sonal and  never  impersonal ;  it  is  always  in  mind  and 


Evidence  is  not  Authority.  217 

never  in  matter ;  it  records  the  actions  of  the  Will, 
and  a  multiplicity  of  -sequences  ;  its  knowledge  of  the 
past  gives  neither  a  hope  nor  a  despair  of  the  future. 
With  the  idealist,  experience  is  but  the  human  knowl- 
edge of  superhuman  authority.  A  condition  is  not 
authority.  We  repeat,  necessity  is  not  authority  ;  nor 
is  uniformity  necessity.  The  inevitable  is  not  author- 
ity. Evidence  is  not  authority.  The  writer  of  the 
Introduction  finds  authority  for  sanitary  rules  in  the 
fact  that  a  walk  before  breakfast  conduces  to  health. 
This  is  but  the  persuasion  of  experience,  but  it  is  not 
authority.  Authority  commands,  not  persuades.  It 
gives  a  rule,  not  a  reason.  Authority  may  give  a  rule 
through  reason,  but  not  give  reason  as  the  rule.  A 
child  in  some  acts,  obeys  as  required  by  parental  au- 
thority ;  in  other  things,  it  pleases  itself ;  yet  in  oth- 
ers it  is  passive  under  circumstances.  Passive  expe- 
rience is  involuntary,  and  therefore  necessary  ;  obedi- 
ence to  authority  is  voluntary,  and  therefore  moral  ; 
all  other  conduct  is  wilfully  indifferent  to  authority, 
and  selfish,  and  may  or  may  not  be  innocent ;  but  mo 
rality  is  obedient  conduct  required  by  authority.  With- 
out authority,  you  may  have  selfishness,  passive  en- 
durance, but  not  morality.  In  this  way  we  see  that  to 
have  morality,  we  must  have  conduct  under  authority. 
The  issue  presented  is  between  a  religious  morality 
under  supernatural  authority  and  a  scientific  morality 
under  no  authority.  But  the  issue  is  unreal.  Science 
only  investigates  where  religion  worships.  What  is 
objective  in  nature  is  subjective  in  supernature.  Nat- 
ural facts  are  manifestations  of  supernatural  power 
and  authority.     Science  studies  the  objective,  and  ig- 


2i8       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

nores  the  subjective,  while  religion  uses  the  objective 
to  prove  the  subjective.  The  morality  is  one.  Science 
seeks  to  know  it  through  nature  only,  without  any 
authority  ;  while  Religion  proves  its  authority  through 
both  Nature  and  Supernature. 

But  the  real  authority  of  nature,  is  the  Supernatural 
Will  behind  nature.  The  fire  would  be  powerless  to 
burn  the  child,  unless  power  was  given  to  it ;  but  the 
fire  was  not  authority.  The  originator  of  the  fire  is 
the  authority  of  the  fire.  Nature  proclaims  only  the 
Supernatural  Will.  What  is  called  Natural  Morality 
is  but  the  objective  manifestation  of,  and  has  its  au- 
thority in,  subjective  Supernatural  Morality.  Author- 
ity is  always  above  the  plane  of  its  action. 

If  morality  is  founded  on  nature,  on  what  is  nature 
founded?  Mr.  Spencer  says  (F.  P.,  p.  16), "  informa- 
tion, however  extensive  it  may  become,  can  never 
satisfy  inquiry.  Positive  knowledge  does  not,  and 
never  can,  fill  the  whole  region  of  possible  thought. 
At  the  utmost  reach  of  discovery  there  arises,  and 
must  ever  arise,  the  question  —  What  lies  beyond?  As 
it  is  impossible  to  think  of  a  limit  to  space  so  as  to  ex- 
clude the  idea  of  space  lying  outside  that  limit ;  so 
we  cannot  conceive  of  any  explanation  profound 
enough  to  exclude  the  question  — What  is  the  expla- 
nation of  the  explanation  ?  If  Supernature  is  denied, 
is  Nature  authority  unto  itself  ?  If  so,  one  part  of 
nature  would  command  another  part ;  as  would  be  the 
case  if  matter  commanded  conduct,  and  both  matter 
and  conduct  were  called  Nature.  But,  after  all, would 
not  the  part  commanding  be  supernatural  to  the  part 
commanded  ? 


Necessary  Conduct  not  Responsible.         2 1 9 

Is  morality  founded  on  nature,  or  on  a  supernatural 
authority  which  controls  nature?  Why  restrict  the 
rules  of  conduct  to  the  lesson  of  the  facts  of  nature, 
and  deny  their  authority  in  the  Will  of  a  supernat- 
ural Factor  illustrated  in  the  facts  of  nature?  To 
that  Will  the  human  inquiry  is  driven  at  last. 

If  morality  has  no  supernatural  authority,  has  it 
any  natural  foundation  ?  or  is  its  natural  foundation  a 
kind  of  natural  authority  ?  Or  has  morality  no  au- 
thority ?  It  would  seem  that  morality  must  be  under 
authority,  if  anything  must.  But,  if  authority  is  no 
longer  to  have  place  among  moral  ideas,  what  is  to 
be  substituted  for  it?  Necessity?  From  our  own 
human  will,  we  infer  a  superhuman  Will,  uniform  but 
never  necessarily  determined,  in  the  constitution  of 
things.  All  necessary  evolution  of  conduct  thus  seen 
to  be  necessary,  is  also  without, 

(ii)  Moral  responsibility  for  conduct,  for  causes,  or 
for  effects.  Necessary  conduct  in  moral  evolution 
being  a  necessity  of  evolution,  of  course,  as  a  neces- 
sity, must  exclude  moral  responsibility.  If  "  moral 
principles  must  conform  to  physical  necessities,"  the 
real  and  ultimate  sphere  of  human  conduct  is  physi- 
cal and  not  moral.  But  responsibility  belongs  to  the 
moral  and  not  the  physical. 

What  is  responsibilty  ?  It  is  the  answer  made  by 
derived  will  to  the  prescribed  requirements  of  unde- 
rived  Will.  It  is  the  reciprocal  of  authority.  As  the 
authority  so  is  the  responsibility.  As  authority  is  the 
power  of  personal  will  over  personal  will ;  so  respon- 
sibility is  the  return  which  personal  will  makes  to  per- 
sonal will.     As  action  and  reaction  are  equal  and  op- 


220       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

posite,  so  are  authority  and  its  corresponding-  respon- 
sibility— responsibility  is  the  echo  of  authority.  Moral 
responsibility  begins  and  ends  with  the  freedom  of 
the  Will.  Deny  that,  and  you  deny  the  moral  system 
of  the  universe.  One  atom  is  not  responsible  to  an- 
other atom  ;  gravitation  is  not  responsible  to  electric- 
ity ;  nor  is  the  outcome  of  physical  necessities  re- 
sponsible to  moral  principles — in  fact,  in  materialism, 
there  are  no  moral  principles.  So  far  as  moral  prin- 
ciples must  conform  to  physical  necessities,  they  are 
not  responsible  to  physical  necessities  for  not  con- 
forming. This  reverses  all  former  moral  ideas.  The 
responsibility  of  mind  to  matter — of  the  moral  to  the 
physical — is  inverting  the  pyramid.  We  are  respon- 
sible to  authority.  We  must  yield  to  necessity.  If  we 
retain  the  use  and  the  meaning  of  the  words  author- 
ity and  responsibility,  we  must  continue  to  admit  su- 
pernatural personality.  To  give  up  supernatural  per- 
sonality, we  have  left,  only  natural  impersonality;  de- 
throning moral  authority  and  abrogating  moral  re- 
sponsibility. 

Nature  is  under  control  from  without,  or  from  with- 
in. If  it  is  under  control  from  without,  it  is,  of  course, 
under  supernatural  authority.  If  supernature  be  de- 
nied and  nature  is  under  control  from  within,  and  na- 
ture is  all,  then  all  is  natural ;  and  conduct  commonly 
called  good,  and  conduct  commonly  called  bad,  are, 
to  nature,  equally  natural,  and  are,  therefore,  to  na- 
ture, equally  right  and  equally  wrong.  Nature  cannot 
hold  man  responsible  for  what  nature  makes  him  do. 

We  have  said  that  all  conduct  is  free  or  all  conduct 
is  necessary  ;  so  far  as  conduct  is  necessary,  it  is  a  blind, 


Necessity  is  Impersonal.  221 

inexorable  energy  of  matter,  as  much  as  is  that  of 
gravitation,  electricity  or  chemic  affinity;  and,  as  an 
energy  of  matter,  it  admits  of  power  but  no  author- 
ity, unless  it  be  a  supernatural  authority.  So  far  as 
conduct  is  free,  it  is  moral,  under  supernatural  au- 
thority, and  cannot  be  necessary. 

Can  morality  be  called  morality  in  which  super- 
natural authority  is  denied,  and  in  which  even  natu- 
ral authority,  or  authority  of  any  kind,  is  not  admit- 
ted ?  Is  the  idea  of  moral  authority  no  longer  to  be 
involved  in  the  idea  of  morality,  and  with  the  loss  of 
the  idea  of  authority  are  we  also  to  lose  the  idea  of 
moral  responsibility  ?  If  the  ideas  of  authority  and 
responsibility  are  both  to  be  dissevered  from  our  ideas 
of  morality,  what  is  left,  but  the  inexorable,  blind, 
impersonal,  unintelligent  power  of  necessity  ? 

Is  the  universe  under  Necessity  or  under  Author- 
ity ?  Blind,  unintelligent,  impersonal  Necessity  ac- 
counts for  nothing,  not  even  for  itself;  intelligent, 
omnipresent,  personal  Authority  accounts  for  every- 
thing, except  Itself.  Necessity  is  a  matter-system, 
and  materializes  all  heretofore  mentalized  ;  Authority 
is  a  mind-system,  and  mentalizes  all  heretofore  mate- 
rialized. Morality  is  human  conduct  with  a  moral 
purpose.  Under  which  system  is  morality  possible? 
If  under  the  matter-system,  it  is  called  Natural 
Morality ;  if  under  the  mind-system,  it  is  called 
Supernatural  Morality. 

Necessity  is  impersonal,  and  executes  without  com- 
manding, as  in  gravitation  ;  authority  is  personal, 
and  commands  without  executing,  as  in  the  command 
to  do  unto  others  as  we   would  have  others  do  unto 


222       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

us.  All  physical  phenomena,  in  physical  relations, 
are,  primarily,  under  physical  necessity ;  all  moral 
conduct,  in  moral  relations,  is,  primarily,  under  moral 
authority.  That  is,  where  the  power  and  the  act  are 
identical,  there  is  no  authority  and  no  responsibility; 
and  just  as  they  are  dissociated,  there  is  authority 
and  no  necessity. 

But  necessary  conduct  is  not  moral  conduct.  Com- 
pulsion creates  no  duties.  If  morality  is  founded  in 
nature,  all  conduct  must  be  natural  as  well  as  the 
consequences  of  conduct.  But,  if  Nature  is  always 
right,  and  conduct  be  all  natural,  so  all  conduct 
would  be  right,  and  there  should  be  no  detrimental 
consequences. 

So  far  as  the  basis  of  things  is  material,  it  is  neces- 
sary— in  a  word,  so  far  as  moral  principles  conform 
to  physical  necessities,  they  cease  to  be  moral  princi- 
ples, and  necessary  conduct  is  not  responsible.  We 
are  not  to  be  blamed  for  doing  what  we  were  com- 
pelled to  do.  There  is  no  guilt  in  necessity.  Nature 
cannot  condemn  us  for  being  natural.  If  we  are  the 
higher  parts  of  nature,  we  are  not  responsible  to  the 
lower  parts.  Equals  are  never  responsible  to  equals. 
We  must  exonerate  Nature  from  all  responsibility, 
unless  we  enthrone  a  Supernature  to  whom  it  could 
be  responsible. 

If  man  is  not  responsible  for  necessary,  evolution- 
ary conduct,  no  more  is  he  responsible  for  necessary 
causes  in  moral  evolution,  which  necessitated  the 
conduct,  as  a  necessary  effect.  If  the  conduct  of 
man  is  an  effect  of  some  necessa^  cause  acting  upon 
him,  that  necessary  cause  was  a  necessary  effect  of 


What  is  Cause?  223 


some  necessary  cause  before  it,  and  so  on  back  ad 
infinitum. 

If  there  is  no  moral  responsibility  for  necessary 
evolutionary  conduct,  nor  for  necessary  evolutionary 
causes,  there  is  no  responsibility  for  necessary  effects 
in  moral  evolution.  What  are  effects?  Mr.  Spencer 
says,  "  Universally  the  effect  is  more  complex  than 
the  cause."  (F.  P.,  §  156.)  How  can  there  be  any 
more  responsibility  for  the  effect  of  conduct,  when, 
as  we  have  just  learned  from  Mr.  Spencer,  "the 
composition  of  causes  is  so  intricate,  and  from  moment 
to  moment  so  variable,  that  effects  are  not  calcula- 
ble?"    (i  Psy.,  §219.) 

How,  then,  with  complex  and  variable  causes,  and 
with  effects  so  complex  and  variable  that  they  are 
not  calculable,  can  we  so  determine  the  "  necessary 
relations  between  causes  and  effects"  as  to  obtain  a 
rule  of  moral  conduct,  and  fix  moral  responsibility  ? 
We  cannot  understand  cause,  but  can  we  any  more 
understand  effect?  What  is  cause  —  the  seed,  the 
soil,  or  the  sun — to  the  wheat?  What  is  the  effect  of 
the  cause — the  wheat,  the  nourishment  to  the  eater, 
the  deeds  he  does,  or  the  thoughts  he  thinks  ?  Effect 
follows,  but  does  not  come  out  of,  what  we  call  cause. 
Night  is  not  the  effect  of  the  preceding  day.  In  the 
correlation  of  force  there  is  all  of  cause  and  effect 
that  there  is  anywhere  ;  but  in  the  sympathy  of  direct 
correlation,  though  the  presence  of  one  thing  is  the 
presence  of  some  other  things,  one  does  not  create 
the  other  into  its  presence.  Good  labor  is  the  occa- 
sion of  good  wages ;  the  presence  of  religion  is  the 
occasion  of  morality,  and  so  on.     In  the  antipathy  of 


224       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

inverse  correlation,  the  absence  of  one  thing  is  the 
occasion  not  the  cause  for  the  presence  of  some  other 
thing;  as,  when  religion  is  absent,  immorality  is  pres- 
ent. Cause  is  power,  and  power  acts  where  it  is,  but 
never  where  it  is  not.  Cause  is  in  the  present,  not 
in  the  past  or  the  future.  The  absence  of  heat  is  the 
occasion  of  the  presence  of  electricity.  The  going 
of  one  is  the  coming  of  the  other.  The  movement 
is  one  of  displacement  and  substitution. 

No  satisfactory  induction  of  the  rules  of  morality 
can  be  made  from  any  necessary  relation  of  cause 
and  effect ;  because  all  causes  are  indefinite  and  make 
more  indefinite  effects;  and  because  conduct  is  an 
act  of  a  derived  human  Will,  and  as  conduct,  is  not 
a  cause  ;  and  what  follows  is  the  discipline  imposed 
by  the  underived,  superhuman  Will,  and  as  discipline, 
is  not  an  effect.  These  two  orders  of  will,  the  human 
in  conduct  and  the  superhuman  in  discipline,  we 
must  admit,  unless  we  assume  that  the  human  will  is 
supreme  in  the  universe  and  in  both  conduct  and 
consequences.  When  Nature  manifests  no  other 
Will,  the  superhuman  Will  is  fixed  in  the  constituted 
order  of  cause  and  effect. 

Having  shown,  as  we  think,  that  all  evolution  is 
necessary,  and  that  all  necessary  evolution  is  without 
moral  authority  over  either  the  conscience  of  con- 
duct, the  instability  of  conduct,  or  the  heterogeneity 
of  condnct ;  and  that  it  is  also  without  moral  respon- 
sibility for  evolutionary  conduct,  evolutionary  causes, 
or  evolutionary  effects,  it  remains  only  to  state,  under 
the  present  proposition,  that 

All  conduct  called  Natural  Morality  is  a  necessary 


Evolution  Ignores  Responsibility.         225 

evolution  ;  and,  therefore,  as  such,  is  without  either 
moral  authority  or  moral  responsibility.  Indeed,  this 
seems  to  be  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Spencer  himself,  when 
he  says  :  "  Thinking  of  the  extrinsic  effects  of  a  for- 
bidden act,  excites  a  dread  which  continues  present 
while  the  intrinsic  effects  of  the  act  are  thought  of; 
and  being  thus  linked  with  these  intrinsic  effects 
causes  a  vague  sense  of  moral  compulsion.  Emerg- 
ing as  the  moral  motive  does  but  slowly  from  amidst 
the  political,  religious,  and  social  motives,  it  long 
participates  in  that  consciousness  of  subordination  to 
some  external  agency  which  is  joined  with  them  ; 
and  only  as  it  becomes  distinct  and  predominant 
does  it  lose  this  associated  consciousness — only  then 
does  the  feeling  of  obligation  fade. 

"  This  remark  implies  the  tacit  conclusion,  which 
will  be  to  most  very  startling,  that  the  sense  of 
duty  or  moral  obligation  is  transitory,  and  will  di- 
minish as  fast  as  moralization  increases.  Startling 
though  it  is,  this  conclusion  may  be  satisfactorily  de- 
fended. Even  now  progress  towards  the  implied  ul- 
timate state  is  traceable.  The  observation  is  not  in- 
frequent that  persistence  in  performing  a  duty  ends 
in  making  it  a  pleasure ;  and  this  amounts  to  the  ad- 
mission that  while  at  first  the  motive  contains  an 
element  of  coercion  at  last  this  element  of  coer- 
cion dies  out,  and  the  act  is  performed  without  any 
consciousness  of  being  obliged  to  perform  it.  The 
contrast  between  the  youth  on  whom  diligence  is 
enjoined,  and  the  man  of  business  so  absorbed  in 
affairs  that  he  cannot  be  induced  to  relax,  shows  us 
how  the  doing  of  the  work,  originally  under  the 
15 


226       The  Philosophy  of  the  Super  natural. 

consciousness  that  it  ought  to  be  done,  may  event- 
ually cease  to  have  any  such  accompanying  con- 
sciousness. Sometimes,  indeed,  the  relation  comes  to 
be  reversed  ;  and  the  man  of  business  persists  in  work 
from  pure  love  of  it  when  told  that  he  ought  not.  Nor 
is  it  thus  with  self-regarding  feelings  only.  That  the 
maintaining  and  protecting  of  wife  by  husband  often 
result  solely  from  feelings  directly  gratified  by  these 
actions,  without  any  thought  of  must;  and  that  the 
fostering  of  children  by  parents  is  in  many  cases  made 
an  absorbing  occupation  without  any  coercive  feeling 
of  ought;  are  obvious  truths  which  show  us  that  even 
now,  with  some  of  the  fundamental  other-regarding 
duties,  the  sense  of  obligation  has  retreated  into  the 
background  of  the  mind.  And  it  is  in  some  degree 
so  with  other-regarding  duties  of  a  higher  kind.  Con- 
scientiousness has  in  many  outgrown  that  stage  in 
which  the  sense  of  a  compelling  power  is  joined  with 
rectitude  of  action.  The  truly  honest  man,  here  and 
there  to  be  found,  is  not  only  without  thought  of  legal, 
religious,  or  social  compulsion,  when  he  discharges  an 
equitable  claim  on  him  ;  but  he  is  without  thought  of 
self-compulsion.  He  does  the  right  thing  with  a  sim- 
ple feeling  of  satisfaction  in  doing  it ;  and  is,  indeed, 
impatient  if  anything  prevents  him  from  having  the 
satisfaction  of  doing  it."     (D.  E.,  §  46.) 

Mr.  Spencer  looks  forward  to  the  time  in  the  future 
of  the  race  when,  by  its  accumulated  experiences, 
man  will,  as  naturally  as  the  sun-flower  turns  to  the 
sun,  adjust  his  conduct  to  right  ends,  He  will  do  this 
not  under  what  we  now  call  authority,  or  the  com- 
mand of  any  supernatural  Will,  but  as  a  physical  func- 


Evolved  Will  is  no  Will.  2  2 


ZZJ 


tion.  The  words  moral  conduct,  moral  authority  and 
moral  responsibility  will  become  obsolete,  in  the  per- 
fect adjustment  of  acts  to  ends. 

All  Morality  without  moral  authority  or  moral  re- 
sponsibility, is  no  Morality  ;  all  so-called  Natural  Mor- 
ality is  without  moral  authority  or  moral  resposibil- 
ity  ;  therefore,  all  so-called  Natural  Morality  is,  in  fact, 
no  morality. 

According  to  the  theory  of  materialistic  evolution 
all  nature  is  evolved  unprescribed,  and  is  necessary  ; 
all  natural  morality  is,  of  course,  under  nature  ;  all 
conduct  under  nature  is  necessary  ;  all  necessary  con- 
duct is  not  free  ;  all  conduct  that  is  not  free,  is  not 
responsible  ;  and  all  conduct  that  is  not  responsible, 
is  not  moral  conduct. 

But  where  is  this  necessity  of  natural  evolution  to 
begin,  and  where  is  it  to  end?  Mr.  Spencer  speaks 
of  "  necessary  consequences ;"  but  how  much  neces- 
sity is  in  the  chain  of  antecedent  causes  ?  If  cause  is 
an  evolution,  it  is  necessary  as  all  else  in  evolution,  for 
all  evolution  is  necessary  ;  but,  if  cause  is  not  neces- 
sary as  an  evolution,,  then  evolution  does  not  account 
for  all  in  the  universe.  The  whole  chain  of  causes  and 
effects  preceding-  conduct  as  an  evolution,  is  under 
necessity,  or  nothing  is  under  necessity  and  nothing 
is  an  evolution.  How  about  free  Will?  An  evolved 
Will  is  a  necessary  Will,  or  rather  no  Will.  From 
views  of  evolutionary  nature — necessary  nature  — it 
is  clear  that,  as  there  is  no  Will  in  evolution,  things 
must  be  as  they  are,  and  because  Natural  Morality  is 
an  evolution,  it  is,  therefore,  necessary.  If  so,whatever 
else  evolved  conduct  may  be  called,  it  is  a  misnomer 


228        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

to  call  it  Morality.  Morality  is  free,  and  therefore, 
moral  conduct.  If  not  free,  it  is  as  automatic  as  the 
attraction  of  the  sun,  but  it  is  not  moral. 

4.  Evolution  must  be  a  supernatural  method,  rather 
than  a  natural  process,  in  any  scheme  of  possible  mor 
ality.  At  the  outset,  Morality  was  said  to  be  either 
evolved  or  prescribed,  or  evolved  as  prescribed.  If 
morality  is  a  natural  evolution,  and  natural  evolution 
is  shown  to  be  a  necessary  evolution,  then  natural 
morality  is  a  necessary  morality,  or  rather,  no  moral- 
ity. But  if  there  is  a  morality  at  all,  it  must  be  free 
and  not  necessary  conduct;  if  it  be  free  and  not  nec- 
essary conduct,  it  cannot  be  a  necessary  evolution  ; 
if  it  be  not  a  necessary  evolution  it  cannot  be  a  natural 
evolution,  for  natural,  impersonal  evolution  is  neces- 
sary; if  it  be  not  a  natural  evolution,  it  must  be  a 
supernatural  evolution,  if  it  be  an  evolution  at  all. 

First. — All  prescribed  morality  is  free,  not  neces- 
sary ;  and  Morality  is  prescribed  when  it  is  neither 
accidental  nor  necessary.  It  is  prescribed  if,  before 
acting,  we  are  told  how  we  ought  to  act.  This  we 
may  be  told  directly,  as  an  inspired  written  revela- 
tion ;  or  we  may  be  told  this  indirectly,  by  reflecting 
upon  the  consequences  of  past  acts.  But  whether  we 
be  told  directly  or  indirectly,  how  we  ought  to  act, 
before  acting,  we  have  our  action  none  the  less  pre- 
scribed ;  the  rule  of  action  must  be  prescribed  to  be 
the  law  of  action. 

Let  us  look  into  the  laws  of  matter,  the  knowledge 
of  the  mind,  the  constitution  of  nature,  and  the  civil 
and  social  relations  of  mankind,  and  see  if  facts  war- 
rant the  induction,  that,  as  there  are  no  facts  without 


Prescribed  Morality  is  Free.  229 

a  factor,  there  is  a  Factor  in  nature  which  nature  is 
not.  The  belief  in  the  supernatural  has  universally 
affected  human  conduct.  Was  the  belief  a  delusion  ? 
The  world  has  wrought  under  the  theistic  conviction, 
as  if  it  were  true,  and  under  this  conviction,  whether 
well  founded  or  not,  has  been  all  true  progress. 

What  is  called  Natural  Morality  being  necessary, 
is  not  prescribed  ;  for,  in  a  system  of  necessary  nature, 
there  is  no  one  free  to  prescribe.  Morality  which  is 
prescribed  is  free,  not  necessary  ;  for  nature  cannot 
prescribe  or  require  free  conduct  of  one  of  her  own 
children  not  free  to  obey. 

We  repeat,  all  prescribed  Morality  is  free,  as 
opposed  to  necessary  morality  ;  because  only  a  free 
power  could  prescribe,  and  only  a  free  agent  could 
obey.  An  unintelligent  and  impersonal  nature  can- 
not prescribe  to  an  unintelligent  and  impersonal  stone, 
that  it  must  gravitate  ;  when,  by  a  necessary  nature, 
it  cannot  help  gravitating.  For  morality  to  be  mor- 
ality, there  must  be  moral  freedom,  and  moral  free- 
dom implies  that  each  person  is  a  law  unto  himself, 
or  that  the  laws  are  prescribed  to  him,  which  he  is  free 
to  obey  or  disobey.  If  there  is  any  morality  which 
is  not  natural  morality  and  therefore  not  necessary, 
it  must  be  supernatural  morality,  which  is  therefore 
free. 

It  may  be  said  that  the  conduct  called  natural  mor- 
ality is  prescribed  to  the  future  by  the  consequences 
of  past  conduct — that  the  present  sufferings  of  a 
burnt  child  prescribe  to  him  a  command  to  keep  out 
of  the  fire  in  the  future — in  a  word,  that  all  painful 
experiences  may  be  said  to  require  men  to  do  or  not 


230       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

to  do  certain  things.  Persons  may  prescribe  conduct 
to  persons;  but  impersonal  nature  can  prescribe 
nothing.  Mind  prescribes  to  mind,  not  matter  to  mind 
or  mind  to  matter.  Morality  is  obedience  of  mind  to 
mind,  not  the  conformity  of  mind  to  matter.  Obedi- 
ence is  intelligent  conformity  of  conduct  to  authori- 
tative command.  Blind,  unconscious  action  is  not 
moral  obedience.  If  moral  conduct  is  the  moral 
adjustment  of  moral  acts  to  moral  ends,  who  is  the 
Adjuster?  Adjustment  implies  anticipation;  antic- 
ipation implies  intelligence;  and,  if  like  is  from  like, 
intelligence  in  us  implies  its  derivation  from  a  higher 
intelligence.  To  anticipate  the  end  from  the  begin- 
ning is  to  know  the  end  from  the  beginning.  Only 
omniscient  Supernature  can  know  all  nescient  nature. 

There  can  be  no  morality  in  necessary  nature ; 
therefore,  if  moral  conduct  is  either  prescribed  or 
supernatural,  it  must  be  both.  So  far  as  conduct  is 
moral,  it  is  prescribed  ;  and  so  far  as  prescribed,  it 
must  be  supernatural;  as  natural  evolution  prescribes 
nothing.  Evolution  anticipates  its  work,  or  it  does 
not.  If  it  does  not  anticipate  its  work,  then  its  work 
is  only  blind  phenomena,  implying  neither  obedient 
morality  nor  disobedient  immorality.  If  it  does 
anticipate  its  work,  then  evolution  is  supernatural  and 
is  only  the  method  of  the  Anticipating  Power;  and 
what  that  Power  prescribes  is  right,  and  what  it  pro- 
scribes is  wrong. 

To  agnostic  Evolutionists,  Nature  is  all,  and  all  is 
necessary  ;  and,  therefore,  according  to  Prof.  Hasckel 
and  others,  all  is  unplanned  and  unprescribed.  Nec- 
essary,   and,    therefore,    not    moral    conduct,    being 


Law  is  Will.  231 


unprescribed,  of  course,  free,  and  therefore,  moral 
conduct,  is  prescribed.  As  said  before,  all  morality  is 
evolved  or  prescribed.  All  evolved  morality  ignores 
all  Will,  and  is  necessary.  All  prescribed  morality  is 
free,  and  implies  Will.  Free  conduct  is  free  under 
law,  not  above  it;  and  all  law  is  prescribed.  But  what 
is  Law  ?  Beginning  the  study  of  nature  with  our- 
selves, we  find  that  Law  is  Will  ;  Will  is  one,  as  the 
sun;  law  many,  as  the  rays;  as  every  ray  is  all  sun, 
so  every  law  is  all  Will.  Will  is  eternal  Power  out- 
side of  nature  taking  form  as  nature  ;  nature  is  visible 
Will.  Those  who  den)-  that  law  is  will,  claim  that  law 
is  a  fact — not  a  cause — that  it  is  a  fact  that  like  condi- 
tions produce  like  results.  This  fact,  they  say,  is  law. 
It  has  been  said  that  the  idea  of  law  is  pushing  Will 
from  the  throne  of  the  universe. 

But  is  the  government  of  law  more  comprehensible 
than  the  government  of  Will  ?  The  power  that  is 
uniform  as  law  can  be  uniform  as  Will.  Besides, 
uniformity  is  only  an  averaging  of  diversities.  Uni- 
formity is  as  impossible  as  stability  ;  and,  in  the  eter- 
nal instability  of  the  homogeneous,  there  can  be, 
according  to  evolution,  no  stability,  and  therefore  no 
uniformity.  Both  uniformity  and  heterogeneity  can- 
not be — if  one  is  the  other  is  not.  But  as  to  Law  and 
Will,  distinction  of  names  is  not  a  difference  of  power. 
Will  is  power.  Supernatural  Will  is  before,  and  in. 
all  natural  entities.  Without  will  there  can  be  no  law. 
Law  implies  the  uniformity  of  Will. 

Nor  can  there  be  law  without  a  lawgiver.  With  no 
supernatural  intelligence  behind  unintelligent  nature, 
there  is  no  certain  basis  for  science;  for  there  can  be 


232        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

no  knowledge  of  future,  unintended  movements.  All 
uniformity  of  law  implies  plan.  Persistent  repetition 
implies  purpose  and  intention.  Unless  nature  is  in- 
telligent in  the  uniformity  of  to  day,  we  have  no 
intelligent  certainty  of  what  is  claimed  to  be  an  unin- 
telligent uniformity  to-morrow.  Is  the  uniformity  of 
nature  intentional  or  unintentional?  If  intentional  it 
is  a  personal  intention  and  therefore  free  ;  if  it  is  unin- 
tentional, the  uniformity  is  impersonal,  and  is  there- 
fore either  necessary  or  accidental.  But  as  uniform- 
ity to  be  uniformity  can  be  neither  accidental  nor 
necessary,  it  must  be  intentional  and  therefore  per- 
sonal. What  is  called  impersonal  law  is  only  the  uni- 
formity of  diversities  in  personal  Will. 

As  relations  and  their  incidental  rights  are  not 
eternal,  but  derived,  they  must  be  derived  from  the 
Underived,  which  is  eternal ;  and  that  Underived  is 
authority  to  all  temporal  things  derived  from  it.  If 
the  Underived  Power  is  thus  older  than  the  derived 
right  commanded,  then  right  is  because  it  is  com- 
manded, and  is  not  commanded  because  it  is  right. 
If  right  is  commanded  because  it  is  right,  then  right 
is  underived,  and  existed  as  right  before  it  was  com- 
manded ;  but  right  is  not  older  than  the  relation  to 
which  it  pertains,  and  in  which  relation  it  was  derived 
and  originated.  If  rights  are  derived,  they  are 
derived  directly  by  command  or  indirectly  in  rela- 
tions. A  derived  relation  expresses  the  Will  of  unde- 
rived Power.  Without  that  Will  the  relations  cannot 
be ;  and  with  that  Will  all  relations  begin,  with  all 
incident  and  inherent  rights.  But  the  command  or 
constitution  of  the  relation  is  conceived  before  the 


The  Supernatural  A dmitted.  233 

relation  and  its  inherent  rights  exist.     Without  the 
command  neither  relation  nor  incident  right  exists. 

Second. — All  supernatural  morality  is  prescribed, 
because  so-called  natural  morality  is  not  prescribed 
but  evolved  ;  and  evolved  morality,  being  natural,  is 
therefore  necessary.  If  all  that  is  necessary  is  all 
that  is  natural,  then,  all  that  is  free  is  all  that  is  super- 
natural. Morality  being  impossible  as  a  natural 
necessity,  we  shall  see  that  it  is  possible  only  under 
a  Supernatural  Power.  The  Power  that  made  the 
human  mind  can  prescribe  to  the  human  mind.  Has 
it  done  it?  Is  there  a  supernatural  Power,  and  has 
it  prescribed  any  law  to  Mental  Phenomena? 

Mr.  Spencer  says  (F.  P.,  §  105)  as  we  have  seen, 
that  "  The  progress  of  intelligence  has  throughout 
been  dual.  Though  it  has  not  seemed  so  to  those 
who  made  it,  every  step  in  advance  has  been  a  step 
towards  both  the  natural  and  the  supernatural.  All 
accountable  or  natural  facts  are  proved  to  be,  in  their 
ultimate  genesis,  unaccountable  and  supernatural." 
If  the  ultimate  genesis  of  all  accountable  and  natural 
facts  is  proved  to  be  unaccountable  and  supernatural, 
why  is  not  the  ultimate  genesis  of  the  authority  for 
moral  conduct  supernatural  ?  Does  supernature  re- 
strict its  moral  manifestations  to  the  natural  con- 
stitution of  things  ?  Supernature  may  talk  by  works 
as  well  as  by  words.  A  tree  speaks  for  supernature 
as  well  as  the  words  of  a  Prophet. 

The  supernatural  is  admitted  by  Mr,  Spencer  as 
"  absolutely  certain."  He  says  {Pop.  Sci.  Monthly, 
Jan.,  1884),  as  we  have  seen  and  now  repeat,  "Amid 
the  mysteries   which  become   more  mysterious  the 


234       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

more  they  are  thought  about,  there  will  remain  the 
one  absolute  certainty  that  he  (man)  is  ever  in  pres- 
ence of  an  Infinite  and  Eternal  Energy  from  which 
all  things  proceed."  Is  this  energy  merely  natural, 
and  do  "  all  things  proceed"  by  evolution  impersonal 
or  personal,  or  by  creation  of  a  personal  power? 
These  questions  are  answered  by  Mr.  Spencer,  when 
he  says,  '"all  accountable  and  natural  facts  are  proved 
to  be,  in  their  ultimate  genesis,  unaccountable  and 
supernatural."  But,  if  "  all  things  proceed  "  by  an 
"  ultimate  genesis,''  what  becomes  of  a  continuous 
■evolution?  or  is  evolution,  in  its  beginning,  a  "gene- 
sis"? The  teaching  of  religion  is,  that  "all  things" 
are  created,  and  then  proceed  by  the  power  genetic- 
ally derived. 

We  are  compelled  to  admit  a.  basis  of  things,  and 
that  basis,  according  to  Mr.  Spencer,  is  super- 
natural ;  so,  to  exclude  supernature  from  nature 
would  involve  the  necessity  to  deny  the  basis  of 
nature  and  so  nature  itself,  which  nature  our  senses 
affirm.  Nature  is  the  monogram  of  Supernature. 
Where  anything  is  found,  we  find  something  super- 
natural, or  the  bodying  forth  of  the  supernatural. 
Religion  simply  adores  as  a  Personal  Presence,  what- 
ever is  admitted  to  be  at  the  background  of  things, 
whether  called  cause — law — force — or  Being. 

According  to  Mr.  Spencer,  "  the  natural  and  super- 
natural ''  are  "dual,"  and  different  not  in  degree  but 
in  kind ;  therefore,  if  there  be  in  nature  that  neces 
sity  which  is  taught  by  both  Mr.  Spencer  and  Prof. 
Haeckel,  then  all  necessity  must  be  in  nature,  and 
none  whatever  in  supernature;  for  that  which  nature 


Hozu  docs  Supemature  Prescribe  ? 


■62 


is,  supemature  is  not.  If  nature  is  under  necessity 
and  supemature  is  not,  then  Supemature  is  the  only 
Power  free  to  prescribe  morality. 

The  Supernatural  Power  and  Person  being  proved, 
as  we  claim,  we  see  that  all  moral  conduct  must  be 
under  its  authority  and  responsible  to  its  sovereignty. 
We  are  now  prepared  to  show  that  so  far  as  morality 
is  an  evolution,  it  must  be  a  supernatural  morality, 
though  a  supernatural  method  of  evolution  ;  if  we 
may  call  it  evolution.  It  is  evident,  as  the  opposite 
of  necessary  conduct,  that  moral  conduct  is  conduct 
prescribed  or  required  by  some  competent  authority. 
Nature,  according  to  Prof.  Haeckel,  prescribes  noth- 
ing-. Further:  It  has  been  said  that  we  must  have  a 
morality  claiming  supernatural  authority  or  one 
grounded  in  nature ;  but  nothing  is  grounded  in 
nature  that  has  not  supernatural  authority.  Natural 
morality  is  the  exponent  of  supernatural  authority, 
not  of  natural  necessity.  Nature  is  but  the  manu- 
script of  supemature.  Nature  is  the  phenomenal 
side  of  nomenal  supemature.  Therefore  so  far  as 
nature  teaches  a  morality,  it  teaches  under  supernat- 
ural authority.  Nature  is  an  open  letter,  addressed 
to  all  who  can  read  it.  Nature  is  but  inspired  things, 
telling  in  their  way  what  cannot  be  so  well  told  in 
any  other.  But  how  does  the  Supernatural  prescribe 
morality?  How  can  the  Infinite  communicate  with 
the  Finite?  We  see  the  fact  to  be  that  like  commu- 
nicates with  like.  By  a  sort  of  fixed  inspiration 
called  instinct,  the  human  mother  communicates  with 
her  offspring.  The  bird-mother,  the  brute-mother, 
and  the  human  mother  have  no  difficulty  in  making 


236       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

themselves  sufficiently  understood  to  their  young. 
There  is  no  difficulty  in  the  Infinite  making  itself 
understood  and  prescribing  to  the  Finite  ;  Impersonal 
Facts  prescribe  as  they  are  exponents  of  a  personal 
Factor.  A  personal  Factor  may  express  his  com- 
mands through  his  works  as  well  as  through  his 
words.  Works  then  become  object-language.  A 
Supernatural  Person  can  talk  through  natural  things, 
if  he  chooses  to  do  so ;  the  simple  question  is :  Has 
he  done  so  ?  So  far  as  nature  is  the  foundation  of 
morality,  it  prescribes  it, 

(i)  In  Works.  We  learn  from  St.  Paul  (Rom.  i., 
19),  "That  which  may  be  known  of  God  is  manifest 
in  them  ;  for  God  hath  shown  it  unto  them.  For  the 
invisible  things  of  him  from  the  creation  of  the  world 
are  clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  the  things  that 
are  made,  even  his  eternal  power  and  Godhead,  so 
that  they  are  without  excuse."  Beside  God's  reveal- 
ing manuscript  in  Nature,  there  was  a  code  of  moral 
law  given  to  the  conscience  of  each  man.  God,  at 
one  time  "suffered  all  nations  to  walk  in  their  own 
ways;  nevertheless  he  left  not  himself  without  wit- 
ness, in  that  he  did  good  and  gave  us  rain  from 
heaven  and  fruitful  seasons."  (Acts  xiv.,  17.)  St. 
Paul  says,  "  When  the  Gentiles,  which  have  not  the 
law,  do  by  nature  the  things  contained  in  the  law, 
these,  having  not  the  law,  are  a  law  unto  themselves ; 
which  show  the  works  of  the  law,  written  in  their 
hearts ;  their  conscience  also  bearing  witness,  and 
their  thoughts  the  meanwhile  accusing  or  else  excus- 
ing one  another."  (Rom.  ii.,  12).  "The  heavens  de- 
clare the  glory  of  God,  and  the  firmament  showeth 


God  uses  no  Particular  Language.        237 

his  handiwork.  One  day  telleth  another  and  one  night 
certifieth  another.  There  is  neither  speech  nor 
language ;  but  their  voices  are  heard  among  them. 
Their  sound  is  gone  out  into  all  lands,  and  their 
words  unto  the  ends  of  the  world."     (Ps.  19,  1-4.) 

(ii)  In  Words.  The  Bible  is  written  in  the  lan- 
guage of  man,  interpreting  what  God  says  in  His 
works,  and  in  the  events  of  the  world.  There  are 
worlds  ;  what  do  they  say  ?  There  are  events  ;  what 
do  they  mean?  The  prophet,  lawgiver,  or  philoso- 
pher, or  priest,  is  the  one  who  reads  the  doings  of 
God,  with  infallible  correctness.  God  uses  no  words 
of  any  language.  But  what  He  does  is  what  He 
says.  Creation  is  the  language  of  God.  Moses  was 
moved  by  God  (who  certainly  knew  how  to  move  the 
mind  of  a  creature  of  His  hand)  to  tell,  in  his  own 
Hebrew  words  and  style,  what  God  did  say,  from 
what  He  had  done,  and  was  doing.  St.  Paul  inter- 
preted God,  using  the  Greek  tongue.  Newton  told 
what  God  had  done  and  was  doing  in  gravitation, 
using  the  English  tongue.  So  that  God  is  truly  and 
fully  interpreted,  it  matters  not  what  tongue  is  used. 
God  uses  none  that  man  uses.  God's  teaching  is 
object-teaching.  A  star,  a  leaf,  a  death,  means  the 
same  to  a  Gentile  as  to  a  Hebrew  ;  though  each  gives 
to  each  thing  a  different  name.  The  Prophet  is  so 
near  to  God  as  to  understand  Him — the  godly  under- 
stand God.  We  cannot  read  writing  beyond  the  focus 
of  our  vision.  Distance  from  Him,  as  from  all  else, 
blurs  the  writing  we  seek  to  read.  Nature  is  the 
materialized  language  of  Supernature  —  the  divine 
pantomime  of  Time.     Some  facts  speak  louder  than 


238        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

some    words.     Science    reads   in    nature   the  divine 
hieroglyphics  of  the  message  of  all  that  nature  is  not. 

As  there  is  will  in  the  universe,  Supernature  must 
prescribe  its  own  mind  and  Will  to  Nature ;  for 
nature,  being  necessary,  has  no  will  of  its  own.  The 
larger  imparts  to  the  smaller.  The  whole  includes  the 
parts,  as  Supernature  includes  nature.  Nature  ever 
increases  or  decreases.  To  decrease  persistently  is 
to  cease  to  be.  To  increase,  is  from  within  itself  or 
without.  To  increase  from  within  itself  is  to  be 
superior  to  itself,  and  to  produce  something  from 
nothing.  All  increase  of  nature  from  without,  is  from 
supernature.  The  natural  is  ever  the  unbroken  evo- 
lution of  the  supernatural. 

Modern  Scientists  in  attributing  uniformity  called 
law  to  the  operations  of  Power,  deny  its  personal 
Will,  and  call  it  nature ;  and  all  religions,  in  attribu- 
ting a  personal  Will  to  Power,  deny  its  uniformity, 
and  call  it  supernature  or  God. 

It  is  claimed  that  "  all  laws  shall  be  conformed  to 
natural  morality  ;"  but,  if  our  argument  has  been 
valid,  there  is  no  natural  morality.  What  is  the  Power 
behind  Natural  Morality,  by  which  it  is  Natural 
Morality  ?  The  authority,  if  any,  for  all  morality,  is 
in  some  supernatural  Will,  whether  supernaturally 
revealed  in  Scripture  or  naturally  revealed  to  mere 
reason  in  the  deductions  of  experience,  or  by  the 
inductions  as  to  what  is  right  and  wrong  in  "  the 
necessary  consequences"  of  actions.  Morality  is  not 
merely  natural  morality  because  nature  manifests  the 
consequences  of  immorality.  Natural  testimony  is 
not  natural  power.     The  witness  is  not  the  Court.   In 


Supernatural  Morality  is  Free.  239 

supernatural  Power,  natural  morality  and  supernat- 
ural morality  are  the  same.  Nature  is  only  a  mani- 
festation of  supernature.  Is  there  an  evolving  power 
above  evolution  manifested  through  evolution?  That 
is  the  simple  question.  In  other  words,  is  natural 
morality  prescribed  by  supernatural  power? 

Mr.  Spencer  says  :  "  It  must  be  either  admitted  or 
denied  that  the  acts  called  good  and  the  acts  called 
bad,  naturally  conduce,  the  one  to  human  well-being 
and  the  other  to  human  ill-being.  Is  it  admitted?" 
("Data  of  Ethics,"  §  18.)  If  so,  what  then?  Acts 
that  naturally  conduce  to  any  results,  must  have  power 
naturally  so  to  conduce  ;  that  power  is  either  derived 
or  underived  ;  if  underived,  it  is  Supernatural  Power 
(God),  acting  directly  as  nature,  as  the  ancient  poly- 
theists  and  nature-worshipers  thought;  if  derived,  it 
must  be  derived  from  the  Underived.  or  is  Supernat- 
ural Power  (God)  acting  indirectly  as  nature,  as  some 
theistic  scientists  now  think. 

Therefore  if,  as  we  claim  to  have  proved,  the  Factor 
in  law  is  supernatural  Will  ;  if  the  energies  of  the  mind 
are  supernatural  in  its  present  and  future  attainments, 
moving  from  nescience  towards  omniscience ;  if  the 
science  of  nature  reveals  a  power  in  nature  for  which 
nature  cannot  account ;  if  the  theistic  idea  works  out 
in  civil  society  as  the  surest   civilizer,  we  claim, 

TJiird.  Therefore,  as  all  supernatural  Morality  is 
free,  there  can  be  no  natural  or  necessary  morality. 
There  is  nothing  necessary  in  the  universe,  if  there  is 
any  free  will  in  it. 

If  evolution  covers  mind  as  well  as  matter,  it  must 
be  because  matter  becomes  mind,  or  because  mind  is 


240       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 


as    necessary  as    matter.     But   the    moral  system  is 
something  that  the  material  system  is  not.     The  ma- 
terial system  of  evolution  is  government  without  a 
Governor— it  is  intelligent  work  without  intelligence 
in  the  worker.     But  such  conclusions  are  not  consist- 
ent with  known  facts  and  phenomena.     Will  in    its 
work  cannot  be  accounted  for  as  mentalized  matter. 
For  this  Will,  Supernatural  Power,  Mr.  Spencer  says  : 
"  Right,  as  we  can  think  it,  necessitates  the  thought 
of  not  right,  or  wrong,  for  its  correlation  ;  and  hence, 
to  ascribe   rightness   to  the  acts  of  the  Power  mani- 
fested through  phenomena,  is  to  assume  the  possibility 
that  wrong  acts   may   be  committed   by  this  Power. 
But  how  came  this  to  exist,  apart  from  this  Power, 
conditions  of  such  kind  that  subordination  of  its  acts 
to  them  makes  them  right,  and  insubordination  wrong  ? 
How  can  Unconditioned  Being  be  subject  to  condi- 
tions beyond  itself?"  ("  Data  of  Ethics,"  Ch.  xv.,§gc).) 
Unconditioned  Being  is  not  subject  to   conditions 
beyond  itself.  We  cannot  ascribe  rightness  to  the  acts 
of  the    Power   manifested  through  phenomena,  and 
therefore  by  no  possibility  can  wrong  acts  be  com- 
mitted by  this  Power.     Whatever  this  power,  mani- 
fested through   phenomena,  may  do,  is  sovereign,  and 
so  is  neither  right  nor  wrong.     Right  is  obedience  to 
sovereign  authority  ;  and  wrong  is  disobedience  to 
sovereign   authority,    but   sovereign    authority    can 
neither  obey  nor  disobey  itself.     But  why  admit  the 
Power  and  deny  the  intelligence  manifested  through 
phenomena?     And,  if  we  admit  the  intelligence,  why 
deny  the  Will;  and  if  we  admit  the  Will,  why  deny 
the  personality,  and  if  we  admit  the  personality,  why 
deny  God? 


No  Assortment  of  Moralities.  241 

Is  a  supernatural  method  suitable  to  Will,  quite 
different  from  its  method  in  matter  that  has  no  will  of 
its  own  ?  The  moral  system  is  based  on  commands 
prescribed  by  superhuman  Will  to  a  human  Will.  In 
the  material  system,  there  are  no  prescriptions  or  com- 
mands, but  work  is  done  without  commands.  There 
are  no  commands,  because  there  is  no  ear  to  hear 
commands,  and  no  Will  to  obey  or  disobey  commands. 
If  the  materialistic  system,  which  is  the  system  of 
evolution,  be  the  true  and  only  one  of  the  universe, 
then  the  material  nature  did  a  useless  work  in  evolv- 
ing human  Will. 

But  in  accepting  either  natural  or  supernatural 
morality,  both  are  accepted  ;  for  nature  and  superna- 
ture  are  as  inseparable  as  sunshine  and  shadow.  The 
rose  without  the  sun  in  its  color,  and  in  its  perfume, 
is  no  longer  the  rose.  Without  supernature,  nature 
is  no  longer  nature. 

There  is  no  assortment  of  moralities.  If,  according 
to  Prof.  Hseckel  and  Mr.  Spencer,  nature  is  necessary 
and  has  no  plan,  then,  as  plan  in  nature,  must  be 
supernatural  to  nature,  all  evolution— all  evolution  of 
moral  conduct — with  method  or  plan,  or,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  Mr.  Spencer,  with  "adjustment  of  acts  to 
ends"— with  purpose,  with  Will — must  be  supernat- 
ural. Do  we  observe  any  plan  in  nature  ?  If  evolu- 
tionary conduct  be  not  natural  and  therefore  neces- 
sary, it  must  be  supernatural  and  therefore  free. 

Morality  is  possible  only  through  freedom  under  a 
supernatural  Will,  revealed  in  written  form,  or  devel- 
oped in  the  consequences  of  conduct,  or  in  both.     If 

it    be   admitted,  that,  it  is   only  under  supernatural 
16 


242        The  PJiilosophy  of  the  Supernattiral. 

authority,  that  acts  commonly  called  good,  and  acts 
commonly  called  bad,  naturally  tend,  the  one  to  hu- 
man well-being  and  the  other  to  human  ill-being,  there 
will  be  no  disagreement.  It  is  not  that  morality  is  an 
evolution,  but  only  as  that  evolution  is  denied  to  be  a 
supernatural  method,  that  the  disagreement  arises. 
Natural  evolution  is  a  mere  process,  without  author- 
ity or  responsibility,  and  cannot  possibly  evolve  a 
morality.  To  supernatural  evolution  only,  as  a  method 
of  Will,  is  a  morality  possible.  As  Nature  according 
to  Prof.  Hasckel,  being  necessary  and  without  method 
or  plan,  prescribes  nothing,  so  all  prescribed  conduct 
must  be  supernatural. 

We  have  said,  that  there  is  no  Natural  Morality  ; 
for,  if  Nature  is  all,  then  all  is  natural,  whether  it  be 
conduct  commonly  called  good  or  conduct  commonly 
called  bad  ;  and  Nature  does  not  hold  man  respon- 
sible to  nature  for  conduct  which  Nature  prompts. 
But  if  Nature  is  not  all,  then  all  that  nature  is  not,  is 
Supernature,  and  is  authority  to  Nature  for  all  the 
conduct  required  of  man,  and  is  also  the  Power  for  all 
the  phenomena  of  Nature.  Supernature  to  be  Super- 
nature  must  be  authority  to  require  of  Nature,  what 
Supernature  may  determine.  Nature  is  the  Fact, 
Supernature  is  the  Factor. 

If  what  is  called  Natural  Morality,  is  not  required 
or  prescribed  by  supernatural  authority,  and  if  nat- 
ural morality  must  have  an  authority,  and  nature  can 
be  no  authority  unto  itself,  then  there  can  be  no  nat- 
ural morality.  That  which  is  called  Natural  Moral- 
ity,  has,  in  fact,  a  supernatural  authority,  if  any,  and 
is  ultimately,  a  Supernatural  Morality.    Supernatural 


Natural  Morality  as  Natural  Evolution.   243 

morality  is  none  the  less  supernatural  because  it  has 
natural  methods  and  verifications.  Natural  Morality 
must  have  either  no  authority,  or  a  natural  authority, 
or  a  supernatural  authority.  To  say  that  natural 
morality  has  no  authority,  is  to  say,  that  it  is  neces- 
sary, and  is  therefore  no  morality.  To  say  that  nat- 
ural morality  has  a  natural  authority,  is  to  say,  that 
conduct  is  an  authority  unto  itself, which  is  impossible. 
To  say  that  Natural  Morality  has  a  supernatural 
authority,  is  to  say  that  with  a  supernatural  authority, 
it  is  supernatural,  and  not  natural  morality. 

Natural  Morality  as  a  natural  evolution,  is  a  neces- 
sity, and  there  is  no  authority  in  necessity  and  there- 
fore no  morality.  We  first  meet  authority,  when  we 
first  meet  personality,  in  all  human  associations.  Im- 
personal authority  is  a  conventional  arrangement,  and 
not  an  essential  reality.  Though,  in  philosophical 
discussion,  traditional  opinion  of  minds  ever  so  em- 
inent is  not  argument ;  yet  it  is  significant,  of  the  idea 
of  the  fundamental  constitution  of  things,  that  nearly 
all  who  have  professed  a  belief  in  what,  in  any  sense, 
might  be  called  Natural  Morality,  have  also  been 
believers  in  a  Supernatural  Authority,  behind  it.  A 
supernatural  Person  has,  almost  universally,  been 
admitted  to  exercise  ultimate  personal  authority  over 
impersonal  nature. 

Mr.  Spencer  stops  at  nature,  where  science  stops. 
He  does  not  deny  supernature,  but  affirms  it ;  but  he 
announces  no  specific  trace  of  it  in  Nature.  He  admits 
a  phenomenal  connexion  between  what  he  admits  of 
supernature  and  what  he  knows  of  nature.  The  both 
are,  and   he  admits  that  all  accountable  and   natural 


244        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

facts  are  proved  to  be  in  their  ultimate  genesis,  unac- 
countable and  supernatural,  and  there  he  firmly  stops. 
To  draw  the  inferences  from  what  he  admits  of  super- 
nature,  furnishes  the  proof  of  the  religious  supernat- 
ural person — God. 

Natural  and  Supernatural  morality  are  two  names 
for  the  same  moral  economy  of  one  power.  That 
morality  which  is  verified  in  natural  conseqences,  is 
authorized  in  supernatural  law  or  Will.  This  one 
Power  of  the  universe,  stereotypes  the  rules  of  what 
some  call  natural  morality  in  "  the  constitution  of 
things,"  as  well  as  specially  reveals  them  in  human 
utterances.  The  evolutionary  school  of  thought  rec- 
ognizes only  the  physical  basis  and  an  impersonal 
power;  but  how  it  can  affirm  the  power  and  deny  the 
intelligence,  or  how  human  personality  can  deny 
superhuman  personality,  is  inexplicable.  If  like  is 
from  like,  then  the  fact  of  personality  in  man  implies 
a  personal  Factor  of  that  personality.  With  religion, 
a  personal  power  and  intelligence  gives  the  law  of 
conduct,  and  adapts  upon  its  violation,  such  conse- 
quences as  it  may  determine,  and,  though  the  systems 
of  manifestations  may  be  two,  there  is  but  one  mor- 
ality. Now, whether  this  one  morality  should  be  called 
natural  or  supernatural,  depends  upon  the  answer  to 
the  questions:  Do  we  admit  the  supernatural  any 
where,  and  what  is  its  relation  to  nature,  and  what 
control  has  it  over  conduct?  Has  morality  any 
authority  of  law  or  not?  If  not,  how  is  it  morality  ? 
If  it  has  any  authority  of  law,  is  that  law  natural  or 
supernatural  ?  Authority  is  the  control  of  an  inferior 
t  by  a  superior.     Nature,  therefore,  must  be  under  the 


What  is  Moral  Law  ?  245 

control  of  supernature  or  be  under  no  control ;  for 
it  cannot  be  superior  to  itself  and  so  control  itself,  or 
be  inferior  to  itself  and  put  itself  under  the  control 
of  itself,  or  make  its  own  laws  inexorably  unalterable 
over  itself ;  for  if  it  made  its  own  laws,  it  can  repeal 
or  suspend  its  own  laws.  If  nature  is  thus  its  own 
lawgiver,  it  is  superior  to  itself,  which  is  impossible. 

Every  human  act  is  either  necessary  or  not  neces- 
sary. If  necessary,  it  is  no  more  morally  responsible 
than  the  necessary  phenomena  of  gravitation  or  of 
electricity.  If  not  necessary,  the  act  is  moral.  For 
every  moral  act  there  is  a  moral  law  and  a  moral  con- 
sequence. The  moral  law  /^scribes  what  the  moral 
consequence  of  conduct  will  be,  and  the  moral  conse- 
quence .Ascribes  or  testifies  what  the  moral  law  is. 
Law  implies  consequence,  and  consequence  implies 
law — one  looks  to  the  other. 

Now,  if  moral  consequences  are  from  moral  law, 
from  what  is  moral  law?  As  the  universe  is  under 
law,  so  law  is  over  the  universe.  In  other  words, 
from  Supernature  must  come  the  laws  of  Nature. 
Therefore,  the  natural  consequences  of  a  moral  act, 
prove  the  supernatural  authority  of  the  moral  law. 
x\ll  will  agree  to  a  natural  morality  which  manifests 
a  supernatural  authority. 

We  call  morality  supernatural  when  we  fix  our 
attention  upon,  and  magnify  the  supernatural  law, 
and  lose  sight  of  the  natural  consequences  of  con- 
duct ;  and  we  call  morality  natural  morality,  when 
we  fix  our  attention  upon,  and  magnify  the  natural 
consequences  of  conduct,  and  lose  sight  of  the  super- 
natural law.     For  instance,  the  natural  consequences 


246       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

of  drunkenness  is  disease — it  naturally  tends  to  the 
ill-being  of  the  drunkard.  From  these  consequences, 
the  law  is  deduced  that  drunkenness  is  wrong.  One 
says  that  this  law  is  a  natural  law  because  testified  to 
by  what  is  called  nature.  Another  says,  that  all 
natural  laws  are  but  an  expression  of  supernatural 
authority.  In  fact,  all  nature  is  the  objective  side  of 
supernature.  Certainly,  if  the  consequences  of 
of  conduct  are  natural,  the  law  by  which  conse- 
quences are  consequences,  must  be  supernatural: 
for  the  law  must  be  above  the  consequences  of  its 
violation.  That  is  authority  to  another  which  has 
power  over  that  other;  and,  thus,  in  the  power  of 
supernature  over  nature,  it  is  authority  to  nature. 
The  supernatural,  in  the  sense  of  eternal  intelligence, 
justice  and  power,  does  not  command  things  because  they 
are  right,  but  things  are  right  because  commanded  by  the 
supernatural.  We  are  accustomed  to  speak  of  things 
as  eternally  right  or  wrong  in  the  nature  of  things. 
But  the  supernatural  only  is  eternal ;  and  nothing 
was  either  right  or  wrong  before  supernaturally  con- 
stituted. Rights  and  wrongs  belong  to  relations ; 
but  relations  are  neither  eternal  nor  unchangeable. 
Therefore,  the  Absolute  Being  we  call  God,  having 
no  relations,  cannot,  except  in  an  accommodation  of 
terms,  be  said  to  be  either  right  or  wrong.  To  be 
one  implies  the  possibility,  at  some  time,  of  being 
the  other ;  but,  as  the  Absolute  by  no  possibility 
could  be  wrong,  so  by  no  possibility  could  the  Abso- 
lute be  right:  In  a  word,  the  Absolute,  excluding  all 
relations,  is  entirely  apart  from  all  rights  and  wrongs 
of    relations,   and   there  are    rights  and   wrongs  no 


Rig  Jits  Relative,  not  Absolute.  247 


where  else  than  in  relations.  Obedience  and  disobe- 
dience, reverence  and  irreverence,  holiness  and  un- 
holiness,  are  quite  different  states.  We  must  look 
for  knowledge  of  right  and  wrong  to  supernatural 
authority,  however  attested. 

There  can  be  no  relation  between  the  concrete  and 
the  abstract — between  the  noumenon  and  the  phe- 
nomena— between  Power  and  the  shapes  it  manifests. 
Relations  are  either  personal  or  impersonal.  Imper- 
sonal relations  reveal  only  impersonal  forces.  There 
can  be  no  moral  relations  of  right  and  wrong  between 
the  acorn  and  the  oak— between  the  falling  stone  and 
the  man  it  kills — between  any  merely  physical  cause 
and  its  merely  physical  effect. 

Personal  relations  of  men  to  man  primarily  reveal 
what  are  the  laws  of  the  relations,  and  what  are  called 
their  rights  and  wrongs.  These  personal  relations  are 
either  mutual  or  reciprocal.  Rights  and  wrongs  come 
and  go  with  these  personal  relations.  The  laws  of  the 
relation  are  fixed  in  the  relation.  The  relation  re- 
veals that  as  right  which  never  was  a  right  or  a  wrong 
before.  As  the  relation  so  are  the  correlative  rights 
and  wrongs.  The  question  is,  was  it  right  or  wrong 
to  establish  the  relation  ?  Did  Power  establish  rela- 
tions because  they  were  right,  or  were  relations  right 
because  they  were  established  by  Power?  It  was 
neither  right  nor  wrong  for  Power  to  establish  what 
it  did  establish.  Shall  the  clay  say  to  the  potter,  why 
has  thou  made  me? 

God  never  made  a  right  or  a  wrong  except  as  He 
made  it  in  a  relation.  He  made  man  a  creature  of 
relations,  and  gave  power  to  man  to  act ;  and   man's 


248        The  Philosophy  of  the  Siipeimatural. 

acts  are  right  as  they  consist  with  the  relation,  and 
wrong  as  they  do  not.  Under  delegated  power  an 
agent  may  misuse  his  power;  but  the  guilt  is  in  the 
misuse  of  the  power,  not  in  its  bestowment.  Physical 
ills  may  or  may  not  be  connected  with  moral  guilt. 
Moral  action  is  only  human  and  individual.  Moral 
guilt  is  human  conduct  violative  of  human  relations 
to  man  and  to  God,  and  duty  to  himself.  What  are 
called  rights  and  wrongs  are  names  we  give  to  hu- 
man actions  in  human  relations.  All  that  is  from  God 
in  these  actions  is  the  power  to  act,  and  the  persuasion 
to  act  for  the  ends  of  the  relation.  We  cannot  call 
the  stroke  of  the  lightning  right,  nor  can  we  call  it 
wrong.  Nor  can  we  call  the  destructions  of  the  whirl- 
wind right,  nor  can  we  call  them  wrong.  Nor  can 
we  call  the  bite  of  beast  or  reptile  wrong,  nor  disease 
nor  pain,  nor  death,  wrong.  There  is  no  right  and 
no  wrong  to  the  action  of  impersonal  forces  or  to  the 
inevitable;  but  there  is  right  or  wrong  as  we  act 
according  to  the  prescribed  laws  of  our  relations. 
Rights  and  wrongs  go  no  further.  God  appoints  the 
relations,  and  we  do  right  or  wrong  in  them.  Wrong 
is  something  purely  of  human  will.  Superhuman 
Will  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  origin  of  wrong.  It 
is  the  act  of  created  Will  first,  last  and  all  the  time. 
If  men  could  be  regenerated  into  gods,  there  would 
be  no  wrongs,  and  rights  would  be  known  as  condi- 
tions, not  as  rights. 

President  Noah  Porter  says  (Moral  Science  §  46)  : 
"  Moral  distinctions  are  not  originated  by  the  arbi- 
trary fiat  or  will  of  the  Creator."  Why  not?  Are  these 
moral   distinctions  older  than    the  Creator?     Moral 


Mala  Prohibita.     Mala  in  se.  249 

distinctions  originate  in  moral  relations,  but  who 
established  the  relations  ?  Moral  distinctions  are  not 
eternal— not  older  than  the  relations  to  which  they 
pertain.  They  are  not  of  the  nature  or  being  of  God, 
for  they  pertain  alone  to  relations,  and  God  is  Abso- 
lute., not  relative.  Municipal  law  for  municipal  ends, 
distinguishes  between  mala  in  se  and  mala  prohibita. 
But  all  wrongs  are  mala  prohibita,  express  or  implied  ; 
and  may  be  mala  in  se,  because  they  are  mala  prohibita. 
All  human  actions  essential  to  human  relations  are 
imposed  by  the  very  relations  themselves  ;  and  the 
constitution  of  the  relation  in  itself  prohibits  its  dis- 
regard. New  relations  are  new  laws.  Law  is  in  the 
relation.  The  evolution  of  human  experience  is  codi- 
fying the  lex  non  scripta  of  human  relations.  From  all 
this  we  conclude  that  rights  and  wrongs  are  exclu- 
sively in  human  relations ;  and  rights  are  right  because 
they  are  established,  and  not  established  because  they 
are  rights.  The  establishment  of  rights  and  wrongs 
in  human  relations  was  a  manifestation  of  absolute 
sovereignty.  The  absolute  owes  no  rights  and  can  do 
no  wrong,  for  the  Absolute  is  antecedent  to  all  spheres 
of  the  relative.  Divinely  appointed  self-preservation 
and  self-perfection  and  progress,  are  the  end  of  all 
rights,  and  in  themselves  the  implied  Prohibition  of 
all  as  wrong  that  prevents  these  ends. 

Conventional  morality  or  the  avoidance  of  conven- 
tional mala  prohibita,  is  the  obedience  of  individuals 
to  society.  What  we  here  call  conventional  morality 
may  be  essentially  immoral,  in  arbitrarily  forbidding 
two  relative  rights  as  if  they  were  wrong,  or  in  com- 
manding wrongs  as  if  they  were  social  rights.  Mala 
prohibita  are  not  always  mala  in  se.  Mala  in  se  are  vio- 


250       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

lations  of  the  ends  of  divinely  appointed  relations  ; 
while  mala  prohibita  are  violations  of  the  ends  of 
socially  appointed  relatives.  Their  guilt  is  measured 
by  the  authority  disobeyed.  We  must  remember  that 
might  does  not  make  right.  Only  supernatural  author- 
ity, whether  express  or  implied,  direct  or  indirect, 
can  constitute  the  act  in  a  relation  as  right,  and  con- 
sequently forbid  an  act  as  a  wrong.  God's  will  only 
is  right. 

Finally,  all  free  Morality  is  responsible ;  all  super- 
naturally  prescribed  Morality  is  free,  therefore  all 
supernaturally  prescribed  Morality  is  responsible.  All 
responsible  conduct  is  prescribed  Morality  ;  all  super- 
naturally prescribed  conduct  is  responsible  conduct ; 
therefore,  all  supernaturally  prescribed  conduct  is 
Morality. 

Again  ;  take  a  thousand  years,  say  from  the  begin- 
ning of  the  secularization  of  law  in  the  Twelve  Tables, 
B.  C.  500,  down  to  the  close  of  the  Schools  under  Jus- 
tinian, A.  D.  530,  and  the  Fall  of  the  Empire,  and  we 
see  that  the  human  will  as  evolved  and  adjudicated 
as  natural  morality  and  as  a  center  of  political  life, 
had  been  moving  to  its  maximum  ;  and  also,  sad  to  say, 
to  its  long  sleep  in  the  mental  prostration  of  the  Dark 
Ages.  After  the  Superhuman  Will  opened  the  doors 
of  light,  civilization  awoke  to  a  new  dawn  and  a  new 
life.  Final  progress  is  in  the  persistent  supremacy  of 
Superhuman  Will. 

The  following  tables  and  figure  show  the  evolution 
and  correlation  of  ancient  religions,  ancient  philo- 
sophy, and  ancient  Roman  Civil  law,  for  over  1,000 
years ;  by  these  we  may  see  at  a  glance,  the  great 
factors  working  to  the  great  results  exhibited. 


o 

05 
Oh 


^4   Thousand  Years  of  Civil  Law.        251 


a 

a 

o 

a 


&s 


338.9 


u  :2 

-•Js 

:|S 

:C  a) 

e  gfl 

■*-»  ^  — 

=  °<~ 

03  0J  o 

5-3    EG 

«  O  U 

~    *r.    ED 

eQUffi 


o  3 
3  3 

.  o  S 


S  - 

E  S 
■C   d 


-HCieo 


03 

P 

S'C  2 
wS  5 

3.3  H 
ffi<u  E 

d-Pn  d    y 

-■Sot.  J 
fa 


t*  £  d 
?«a 

EC  ~   DQ 


a 
3 

b- 
d  a 

a  c 
2  o 

SO 


■B  o  OS  S  « 

■S  0  u  o  PS? 

QOPhWXP 


H«W*lC©^        00 


Of 
88  Em- 
perors. 


E  6  »  . 
§11  S 

P 

"=SSS 


;!?.Bl 


1  ■»  2 

P  a 

o  g 


■2  to*     H 

-  --  s-  ;    P 

^^_^  z 
d.o  wd  *"* 


x    a 
H    d 


S 

b  i-§  s 


till  ■lifllP 


o 
•o 


IOOO    Years   of    Law. 


10 

- 

0 

CJ 

_J 

LU 
DC 

S*-            ==\ 

1- 

/     V>            O  \^ 

Z 

^■^                                          \- 

LU 

./^                                                   ^S. 

O 

s'                                                                                    ^v. 

Z 

s^                                                                                           ^>. 

< 

/^                                                                                                     \. 

r\\^\^"\     ^VM^Wa               ^S. 

•Xqdosoiiqd    jo    sjb©a    OOOl 


«*Oh^O 


I  :g 

a  (hS  o 


:  on 
:  a 


— 


Sd 


i3H 


.  c  tso-a  a.-;j=  »4 


»  en    ■ 

1  a  : 

c2 
^_ 


-HifflOMQ0iflH< 


.JDT5^1 


W  o 
acs 

03  d  o 

ill 


:g2 
•  ©  ; 

:tf  d 
.  a  cc 


S 


-js  o  H  H  S  d  «  o 
JMC  c  d  a;  a  5  1 

NATURE. 


--  a 
3  : 


■  >>:>> 

■£  :S 

•  <8.S  d 
■i.iiS.2,c35'5 


•  P. 2 

'Coo 


O 


?i*5 


»  «  fa:  is 


c  ^ 


z  a 


d  e 

—  — 

o  a 

-  a 

0<M 


mCh 


:  a*e 


00    ^ 


.  d  OJ  S  »-- •«  „^i 

:^o  : 
:  kW  : 
^  ^  ■  • 

Nlltill 

o  ©  t<  a  t^jx  d.y 

■  r-    O    t-    U,    U  ■«    a    Cfi 

W-?PhCjOPhPhPh 


o 


o 


MAN. 


Ph 


■a 
o. 


P.    J3 
H     Ph 


- 


bH  ° 

«         P3 


252        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

This  table  exhibits  the  utter  insufficiency  of  what 
is  called  natural  morality,  evolved  in  the  unin- 
spired moral  wisdom  of  the  Philosophers  and  the 
Jurisconsults,  as  against  the  supernatural  morality  of 
Moses  and  the  Messiah.  Never  before  or  since  has 
the  morality  of  human  wisdom  without  religion  been 
so  signally  tried,  and  never  has  it  so  signally  failed. 
Not  that  the  Justinian  Codes  were  without  value. 
As  adjucated  civil  morality,  they  have  been  unsur- 
passed;  and  their  value,  warmed  and  enlightened  by 
a  great  religion,  has  been  great ;  but  nothing  merely 
human  is  sufficient.     "  Our  sufficiency  is  of  God." 

From  shining  star  to  lowly  grassy  sod, 

Is  naught  but  forms  unfolded  by  a  God. 

Like  deepest  shadows  cast  by  brightest  day, 

All  evolution  is  His  veiled  way. 

For  Supernature,  fixed  in  nature's  laws, — 

That  brings  effects  from  out  itself,  the  cause, — 

Evolves  small  things  from  great,  not  great  from  small; 

For  God  it  is  who  worketh  all  in  all. 


LECTURE  V 


METHOD    OF    CORRELATION. 

Everything  is  related,  but  everything  is  not  corre- 
lated. Without  mutuality  or  reciprocity  there  is  a 
mere  relation  in  time  and  space  between  a  stone  and 
a  chair  or  between  a  mountain  and  a  star ;  but  there 
is  correlation  when,  by  a  fixed  law,  things  follow  as 
consequences  in  cause  and  effect,  or  co-exist  in  pairs, 
as  husband  and  wife,  or  as  uniform  sequence  in  light 
and  darkness.  In  other  words,  correlation  is  either 
a  method,  a  state,  or  a  movement. 

i.  Correlation  as  a  method.  The  most  terrible  cer- 
tainty in  all  the  economy  of  nature  is  the  law  of 
equivalence.  Correlation  is  its  method,  which  we 
are  now  to  consider.  The  light  of  science  that  reveals 
the  behaviour  of  forces  in  matter  also  unveils  and 
emphasizes  the  awful  law  of  moral  exchanges.  For 
so  much  wrong,  we  get  an  equivalent  of  suffering. 
But  if  we  measure  the  moral  magnitude  of  the  cause 
by  the  multiplicity  of  its  effects,  and  their  undying 
continuance,  we  shall  see  that  though  a  cause  is  only 
one  thing,  it  is  vast.  In  physics,  we  can  see  so  much 
of  one  force  given  for  another ;    but  in  moral  move- 


254       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

ments  the  equivalence  of  a  wrong  is  never  full.  Men 
reap  one  hundred  grains  for  the  one  they  sow.  That 
which  we  measure  to  others,  they  measure  to  us 
again;  good  measure,  pressed  down,  and  running 
over,  is  surely  returned  to  us. 

The  nature  of  things,  as  seen  in  correlation,  admits 
of  no  escape.  Nature  may  heel  the  wound  you  make, 
but  she  will  mark  its  place  with  a  scar.  If  you  injure 
moral  character,  like  footprints  in  the  snow,  it  can 
never  be  smooth  again.  The  one  sin  of  woman  has 
its  equivalence  in  an  outcast's  life.  The  law  of  hered- 
ity perpetrates  ancestral  disease  to  remote  genera- 
tions. Men  erect  for  themselves  moral  tombs  or 
moral  thrones,  and  each  act  is  a  block  in  the  struc- 
ture built  without  hands.  Consequences  are  remorse- 
less demons  ;  and,  as  has  been  so  beautifully  said,  are 
as  much  beyond  our  control  as  are  a  handful  of 
feathers  which  you  scatter  to  the  winds. 

2.  Correlation  as  a  state.  Things  are  related  as 
unconnected  parts  of  a  connected  whole,  such  as  is 
the  relation  of  sea,  house,  tree ;  or  they  are  corre- 
lated, as  we  have  said,  into  co-existing  and  insepara- 
ble pairs.  Heraclitus  taught  that  nothing  exists 
without  its  contrary,  and  that  to  speak  of  one  is  to 
suggest  its  opposite.  Pythagoras  and  Aristotle  men- 
tion ten  of  these  pairs  : 

Finite  and  Infinite,  Rest  and  Motion, 

Odd  and  Even,  Straight  and  Crooked, 

Unity  and  Plurality,  Light  and  Darkness, 

Male  and  Female,  Good  and  Bad, 

Right  and  Left,  Square  and  Oblong. 


Correlation  as  a  Movement.  255 

These  co-existing  pairs  are  sometimes  of  persons,  as 
husband  and  wife,  parent  and  child,  guardian  and 
ward,  master  and  servant,  vendor  and  vendee,  buyer 
and  seller,  and  mortgagor  and  mortgagee  ;  sometimes 
in  pairs  of  co-existing  forms,  as  concavity  and  con- 
vexity ;  or  of  quantity,  as  much  and  little,  plus  and 
minus  ;  or  of  attributes,  as  straight  and  crooked  ;  or 
of  direction,  as  up  and  down.  Thus  we  see  that,  in 
correlative  states,  pairs  of  dissimilar  things-  must  co- 
exist, and  that  the  mention  of  one  of  the  pair  suggests 
the  existence  of  the  other.  The  husband  ceases  to 
be  husband  when  the  wife  dies.  Without  a  child 
there  can  be  no  parent,  without  a  servant  no  mas- 
ter. Take  away  one  of  two  parallel  lines,  and  the 
other  is  no  longer  a  parallel,  as  a  line  cannot  be  par- 
allel to  itself.  As  the  describing  of  a  curved  line 
makes  one  side  concave  and  the  other  convex,  so  the 
obliteration  of  that  curved  line  obliterates  both  the 
concavity  and  the  convexity.  Forces  are  in  accord 
or  in  discord  with  each  other.  Accordant  forces  are 
in  direct  correlation  ;  discordant  forces  are  in  inverse 
correlation. 

3.  Correlation  as  a  movement  is  where  one  thing  is 
as  its  correlative  is,  like  labor  and  wages ;  or  one 
thing  is  as  another  is  not,  like  right  and  wrong. 
Correlation  is  either  direct  or  inverse. 

id)  Direct  correlation  is  seen  when  any  two  quan- 
tities, qualities,  or  forces  mutually  increase  or  de- 
crease together  in  the  same  ratio.  Thus  wages  vary 
directly  as  work;  that  is,  the  greater  the  work  the 
greater  the  wages,  and  the  less  work,  the  less  wages." 
This  is  illustrated  by  the  two  opposite  and  equal  tri- 


256       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 


angles,  formed  by  the  perpendicular  line  A  C,  in  the 
square  A  B  C  D,  in  the  figure  below.a 

(i)  In  matter  force  it  is  a  demonstrated  principle 
that  action  and  reaction  are  equal  and  opposite.  Exactly 
as  your  finger  presses  the  table,  the  table  presses 
your  finger.  That  which  you  strike,  strikes  you 
back.  If  you  disappoint  the  moral  sense  of  society, 
the  moral  sense  of  society  will  disappoint  you.     As 

(a)  In  this  law  of  direct  correlation,  the  forces  are  in  accord — both  are 
positive  or  plus  or  both  are  negative  or  minus — the  minimum  of  one 
is  the  minimum  of  its  correlative,  and  the  maximum  of  one  is  as  the  max- 
imum of  its  correlative  ;  both  increasing  or  decreasing  in  the  same  ratio. 
Read  across  the  figure  from  left  to  right.  Notice,  that  the  perpendicular 
of  the  square,  standing  on  one  of  its  angles,  is  the  diagonal  of  the  square 
on  one  of  its  sides,  as  in  Fig.  2. 

DIRECT   CORRELATION. 
Fig.  1. 


Minimum. 


Action, 

Labor, 

Energy, 

Gravitation 

Credit, 

Religion. 


Maximum . 


Action, 

Labor, 

Energy, 

Gravitation 

Credit, 

Religion. 


Minimum. 


Minimum. 


Reaction, 

Wages, 

Work, 

Mass, 

Debit, 

Morality. 


Maximum. 


Reaction, 

Wages, 

Work, 

Mass, 

Debit, 

Morality. 


Minimum. 


Inverse  Correlation.  257 

your  hand  warms  the  marble,  so  the  marble  cools 
your  hand.  The  gun  with  which  you  kill  the  bird 
before  it,  recoils  and  bruises  you  behind  it.  We 
cannot  electrize  a  substance  without  magnetizing  it, 
nor  magnetize  a  substance  without  electrizing  it. 
Before  the  laws  of  matter  everything  is  equal.  Na- 
ture enforces  obedience.  Every  atom  protects  itself, 
instantly  arresting,  judging,  and  punishing  each  oL 
fender  against  its  rights.  Man  cannot  lie  to  Nature, 
nor  extort  upon  her,  nor  rob  her.  Her  motto  is, 
semper  fide  lis,  semper  par  at  us. 

(ii)  In  moral  forces  this  direct  correlation  is  no 
less  evident.  These  antitheses  and  syntheses  of 
forces  are  seen  in  the  movement  of  demand  and 
supply  ;  in  credit  and  debt ;  and  in  cause  and  effect. 
Some  things  are  inverse  as  to  one  movement  and 
direct  as  to  another.  For  instance,  religion  is  inverse 
as  to  immorality,  and  direct  as  to  morality.  Labor 
is  inversely  as  to  poverty,  but  directly  as  to  wages. 
Velocity  is  directly  as  to  force,  and  inversely  as  to 
time.  Law  is  inversely  as  to  morality,  but  directly 
as  to  crime.  Civilization,  generally,  is  directly  as  to 
worship  and  knowledge  and  inversely  as  to  igno- 
ance  and  irreligion.  Passion  correlates  itself  in  a 
corresponding  expression.  Anger  is  violent,  grief 
weeps,  pleasure  smiles,  and  hope  rejoices.  Persecu- 
tion and  oppression  beget  resistance,  and  injury  cor- 
relates itself  in  revenge.  The  more  alcohol  the  more 
is  the  intoxication.  Food  correlates  itself  in  strength. 
The  rose  pays  its  debts  to  the  sun,  in  its  perfume  and 
color.  Vice  has  its  exact  equivalent  in  loss  of  char- 
acter, and  known  fraud,  in  loss  of  credit  and  business. 
17 


258       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

(b)  Inverse  correlation  a  is  where  dissimilar  quali- 
ties or  forces  are  so  related  that  when  one  is  increased 
by  any  law  of  change,  the  other  shall  equivalently 
decrease  by  the  same  law.  The  purpose  of  this  lec- 
ture is  to  show,  through  the  laws  of  inverse  correla- 
tion or  conversion,  how  one  force  seems  to  become 
or  be  converted  into  another.  The  process  is  rather 
displacement  and  substitution  than  conversion.  It  is 
transposition  as  distinguished  from  transmutation,  but 
it  is  substitution  rather  than  either.  It  is  one  thing 
for  another.  But  as  in  direct  correlation  neither  of 
the  co-existing  pairs  we  have  mentioned  can  be  absent 
at  the  same  time,  so  now,  in  inverse  correlative  move- 
ment, both  reciprocal  energies  cannot  be  present  at 
the  same  moment. 

This  illustrates  how  the  many  effects  of  the  one 


Read  across  the  figure. 


(a)     INVERSE  CORRELATION. 
Fig.  2. 


Minimum  manifesta- 
tions of  human  self- 
will  in  human  con- 
duct. 


Any  Force. 


Resistence. 
Religion. 


Maximum  of  human 
self-will  in  human 
conduct,  and  maxi- 
mum of  immorality. 


Maximum  direction  of 
human  conduct  by 
superhuman  will. 

-  it 


Its  Correlation. 


= '     Velocity. 
<g  2      Immorality. 

.2  •§ 
15  53 

•r  a 

.5  s 
fi  x 

Minimum  direction  of 
human  conduct  by 
superhuman  will, 
and  maximum  of  im- 
morality. 


When  the  square  of  Fig.  1,  marked  A  B  C  D,  is  placed  upon  its  side 
C  D,  the  line  that  was  a  perpendicular  from  A  to  C  in  Fig.  1,  is  a  diagonal 
from  A  to  C  as  in  Fig.  2. 


Shakespeare s  Correlation.  259 

Power,  that  seem  to  us  to  conflict,  do  not  conflict  to 
Power  itself.  Power  is  one ;  its  manifestations  are 
many.  That  which  to  us  is  plurality  in  nature  is, 
some  how,  unity  in  supernature.  The  same  thing  is 
different  in  different  views.  Correlations  that  are 
direct  or  inverse  to  us  are  not  so  to  correlating 
Power.  Relativity  is  a  law  of  doubles  :  two  cross 
lines  make  four  angles.  It  does  not  require  one  act 
to  make  one  side  of  a  curved  line  convex  and  another 
act  to  make  the  other  side  concave ;  the  opposite 
sides  are  made  by  one  act.  For  instance,  matter  inte- 
grates as  motion  dissipates :  that  is,  the  integration 
of  matter  is  plus  as  the  dissipation  of  motion  is  plus ; 
but  it  is  just  as  true  to  say,  that  the  integration  of 
matter  is  plus,  just  as  the  absorption  of  motion  is 
minus. 

Herbert  Spencer  says  that  "  one  force,  in  giving 
origin  to  the  next,  is  itself    expanded  or  ceases  to 
exist  as  such."     When  the  lower  chamber  of  the  hour- 
Shakespeare  expresses  this  correlation,  in  the   play  of  "  Coriolanus," 
when  Aufidius  says  : 

"  One  fire  drives  out  one  fire  ;  one  nail,  one  nail ; 
Rights  by  rights  foiled,  strengths  by  strengths  do  fail." 
Benvolio  tells  Romeo  : 

"  One  fire  burns  out  another's  burning  ; 

One  pain  is  lessened  by  another's  anguish  ; 
Turn  giddy,  and  be  holp  by  backward  turning  ; 
One  desperate  grief  cures  with  another's  languish. 
Take  thou  some  new  infection  to  thine  eye, 
And  the  rank  poison  of  the  old  will  die." 
Lear  tells  Kent : 

"  Where  the  greater  malady  is  fixed, 
The  lesser  is  scarce  felt." 
And  so  Virgil,  when  he  says,  "  Uno  avulso  non  deficit  alter :    Where 
one  thing  is  absent,  another  takes  its  place." 


260       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

glass  is  full  the  upper  is  empty.  We  must  be  careful 
to  remember  that  the  force  which  expires  may  be  a 
cause  or  only  an  antecedent  to  the  one  that  sur- 
vives or  takes  its  place.  We  cannot  say  that  that 
causes  electricity,  but  only  that  so  much  of  one  goes 
as  so  much  of  the  other  comes.  When  a  virtuous 
man  is  perverted  into  a  vicious  man,  his  virtues  are 
not  a  cause  of  his  vices ;  or  when  a  vicious  man  is 
converted  into  virtue,  his  vices  are  not  a  cause  of  his 
virtues.  When  day  precedes  the  night,  the  day  is 
not  the  cause  of  the  night,  nor  night  an  effect  of 
the  day  because  it  follows  the  day.  The  horse  is 
not  a  cause  of  the  cart  because  it  is  before  it,  nor 
the  cart  an  effect  of  the  horse  because  it  follows  the 
horse.  Substitution  is  not  causation.  Sequences  are 
not  consequences.  But  there  is  a  correlative  move- 
ment in  the  dropping  of  the  sand  in  the  hour  glass, 
from  the  upper  chamber  to  the  lower;  unless  one  be 
emptied,  the  other  cannot  be  filled.  The  chain  that 
pulls  up  a  full  bucket  lets  down  an  empty  one.  The 
rod  dropped  from  the  hand  of  Moses  became  a  ser- 
pent on  earth.  Exactly  as  one,  so  was  the  other.  The 
unknown  quantity  of  the  equation  is  ever  transfer- 
ring or  correlating  itself  into  the  known.  Ignorance 
shrinks  as  knowledge  expands.  Both  in  the  material 
and  moral  world,  when  one  thing  is  more,  something 
else  is  exactly  that  much  less.  The  force  is  the  same, 
the  manifestation  only  is  different. 

(i)  In  matter  force  this  inverse  correlation  takes 
place  when  one  unconscious  force  exchanges  itself 
for  another,  and  acts  inversely  as  the  other  ceases. 
Herbert   Spencer   says,    that  "  when  a  given   force 


Light  Correlates  with  Shadow.  261 


ceases  to  exist  under  one  form,  an  equal  quantity 
must  come  into  existence  under  some  other  form  or 
forms."  You  cannot  both  expend  and  keep  a  force. 
The  butterfly  begins  to  live  as  the  mother-worm  dies. 
In  the  revolutions  of  the  wheel,  one  part  cannot 
come  up  except  as  the  other  parts  go  down.  The 
grain  of  wheat  is  quickened  as  it  dies.  Water  level- 
ing itself  from  one  vessel  to  another  decreases  its 
quantity  in  one  exactly  as  it  increases  it  in  the  other. 
Increasing  light  contracts  but  intensifies  the  shadows. 
In  other  words,  the  maximum  of  one  manifestation 
of  force  coincides  with  the  minimum  of  its  correla- 
tive force.  If  you  gain  motion  you  lose  heat,  and  as 
you  gain  heat  you  lose  motion.  Though  nature  is 
always  in  debt,  yet  she  keeps  a  careful  balance-sheet 
with  exact  and  scrupulous  honesty,  returning  what 
she  borrows,  and  paying  for  what  she  consumes. 
In  agriculture,  you  must  restore  to  the  soil  an  equiv- 
alent for  that  which  you  take  from  it.  If  nature 
uses  heat,  she  pays  in  electricity  or  some  other  force ; 
if  she  dissipates  motion,  she  compensates  by  integrat- 
ing matter.  In  all  action  she  pays  by  equal  and  op- 
posite reaction.  Nothing  is  fruitless.  When  the 
unheated  rifle-ball  strikes  the  iron  plate,  the  plate 
stops  the  ball,  flattened  and  heated.  The  brake  on 
the  wheel  takes  motion  from  the  wheel,  but  gives  it 
heat  instead.  Both  the  ball  and  the  wheel  lose  one 
energy,  but  gain  another  that  is  a  fair  equivalent. 
But  a  force  and  its  equivalent  in  reciprocal  or  inverse 
correlation  are  both  present  at  the  same  moment.  As 
an  electrical  rod  cannot  have  both  positive  and  neg- 
ative electricity  on  the  same  end  ;   and  as,  generally, 


262       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

two  opposite  energies  cannot  both  be  present  at  the 
same  time  and  place,  yet,  if  one  be  absent  the  other 
will  be  present.  Nature  is  vigilant  but  economical. 
When  she  uses  one  force,  she  rests  some  other.  Like 
a  relief  of  sentinels,  when  one  is  off  duty,  another  is 
on.  Correlation  shows,  as  we  have  seen,  how  one 
"  matter  force,"  in  giving  origin  to  the  next,  is  itself 
expended  or  ceases  to  exist  as  such  ;  and  how  much  one 
mode  of  force  is  the  equivalent  of  so  much  of  another 
mode.  It  has  been  likened  to  a  mart  where  we  barter 
or  exchange  one  kind  of  force  for  its  equivalent  in 
another.  It  is  rather  a  bank  from  which  we  do  not 
draw  the  identical  coin  we  deposit,  but  only  its  equiv- 
alent in  other  coin.  But  as  no  credit  is  given,  we  must 
first  deposit  before  we  can  draw  at  all.  Every  force, 
as  it  has  been  said,  is  preceded  by  some  other  force. 
The  law  of  compensation  that  adjusts  the  exchange  in 
this  correlation  gives  one  force  after  another.  In 
brief,  nature  keeps  things  exactly  where  she  wants 
them,  and  in  perfect  harmony,  looking  and  moving  in 
the  direction  of  ultimate  perfectibility. 

Correlative  movements  in  matter  are  necessitated 
by  three  universal  and  omnipotent  principles  in  na- 
ture :  First — All  physicists,  from  Aristotle  down,  say, 
that  nature  abhors  a  vacuum.  Everywhere  must  be 
something,  solid  or  fluid,  and  but  one.  A  moral  vac- 
uum is  as  impossible  as  any  other.  If  man  has  not 
virtues  he  will  have  vices.  Second — Though  there  can 
be  no  vacuum,  and  nature  fills  every  place  with  some- 
thing, she  only  puts  one  thing  in  any  one  place  at  the 
same  time.  In  things  that  run  in  successive  pairs,  such 
as    day  and  night,   virtue    and    vice,  you  will  have 


Moral  Correlations.  26 


0 


exactly  as  much  of  one  as  you  do  not  have  of  the 
other.  Just  as  morality  goes  immorality  comes. 
They  are  not  companions.  Two  kings  cannot  sit  on 
the  same  part  of  the  throne  at  the  same  moment. 
Nature  never  attempts  the  impossible.  The  laws  of 
impenetrability  forbid  space  to  have  too  much  of  any- 
thing. The  driven  wedge  or  nail,  or  the  stone  in  the 
water,  each  displaces  its  own  bulk,  and  no  more. 
Shadows  increase  with  the  departing  sun.  The  roots 
of  the  tree  displace  their  own  bulk  of  earth  in  which 
they  are  fastened.  Two  opposite  trains  cannot  pass 
each  other  on  the  same  track.  In  addition  to  this 
abhorrence  of  a  vacuum  and  this  law  of  impenetra- 
bility of  matter  and  of  incompatibility  of  morals, 
there  is,  thirdly,  the  fact  of  universal  unrest.  Nothing 
is  stationary.  Forces  are  ever  in  unstable  equilibrium, 
and  character  is  ever  oscillating  to  an  average.  As, 
if  you  mix  a  pint  of  the  seed  of  tares  with  a  bushel 
of  wheat,  you  will  average  upward  in  value,  so  you 
will  average  downward  if  you  mix  a  bushel  of  tares 
with  a  pint  of  wheat.  The  moral  average  of  charac- 
ter and  conduct  will  depend  on  the  proportion  of  its 
virtues  to  its  vices.  In  colors,  you  will  have  a  shade 
or  a  tint,  as  the  light  or  the  dark  predominates  in  the 
hue. 

(ii)  In  moral  force  there  is  also  an  inverse  correla- 
tion. Systems  do  not  conflict,  but  agree.  As  in  mat- 
ter, force  is  any  power  that  does  work,  such  as  gravi- 
tation, heat  and  electricity  ;  so,  sacred  or  moral  force 
is  any  power  or  influence  that  affects  conduct  or  shapes 
civilization,  such  as  love,  adoration,  and  awe  in  wor 
ship,  the  sacredness   of  domestic  relations,   and    the 


264       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

highest  mental  and  moral  education  of  man.  Secular 
force  includes  the  seeking-  of  power  for  the  sake  of 
power,  the  love  of  money,  war  for  personal  or  terri- 
torial aggrandizement,  and  the  separation  of  the  state 
from  religion.  Things  that  have  their  opposite,  not 
in  esse,  but  in  posse,  such  as  morality  and  immorality, 
and  things  that  do  not  co-exist  at  the  same  moment 
in  the  same  subject,  can  be  correlated  into  that  op- 
posite :  as  heat  into  electricity,  or  virtue  into  vice,  and 
the  reverse.  If  things  will  change,  it  is  important  to 
know  the  law  of  that  change  as  it  affects  conduct  and 
society. 

Looking  at  the  past  through  the  perspective  of  his- 
tory, it  will  be  seen  that  the  increment  of  secular 
forces  is  exactly  equivalent  to  the  shrinkage  in  the 
sacred  forces,  and  the  reverse ;  and  that  the  correlation 
of  sacred  and  secular  forces  is  as  rigidly  demonstrable 
and  measurable  as  that  of  any  and  all  other  forces. 
This  correlation  is  seen  in  the  fact  that  the  maximum 
of  sacred  forces  coincides  with  the  minimum  of  the 
secular,  and  the  maximum  of  the  secular  force  is  the 
minimum  of  the  sacred.  In  other  words,  a  given 
quantity  of  one  has  been  displaced  and  an  exact  equiv- 
alent of  the  other  has  been  substituted — the  one  com- 
ing as  the  other  goes.  High  civilization  is  in  the  sup- 
pression of  disorganizing  force,  and  the  substitution 
of  its  equivalent  in  one  of  harmony  ;  a  result  ever 
coming  and  ever  to  come.  The  tendency  in  the  ebb 
and  flow  of  events  is  from  extreme  sacredness  to  ex- 
treme secularity,  and  the  reverse.  Take  the  case  of 
one  addicted  to  vice,  say  to  drunkenness,  and  the 
power  of  vice  will  strengthen  exactly  as  the  power 


Wrong  is  Immortal.  265 

of  the  will  weakens.  Discipline  is  correlated  into 
indulgence.  Lawlessness  increases  as  restraints  are 
removed.  Immorality  increases  as  spiritual  or  relig- 
ious power  decreases. 

Do  we  not  in  this  transmutation  or  manifestation 
of  physical  force — the  increment  of  the  one  corres- 
ponding to  the  decrement  of  another,  or  the  incre- 
ment of  one  corresponding  to  the  increment  of 
another,  and  the  reverse — grasp  a  principle  which 
underlies  the  action  and  reaction  of  all  changes, 
whether  physical,  moral,  or  political?  Fraud,  defa- 
mation, falsehood,  impurity,  malicious  violence,  and 
theft,  have  their  place  in  the  universal  chain  of  cause 
and  effect,  of  integration  and  disintegration,  of  pro- 
pagation and  growth,  of  evolution  and  devolution,  of 
conservation  and  correlation.  Can  the  perpetrator  of 
wrong  escape  all  consequences  of  his  act  ?  I s  wrong 
the  only  thing  in  all  the  universe  released  from 
responsibility,  or  that  does  not  propagate  itself,  or 
from  which  the  doer  instantly  disconnects  himself,  and 
leaves  his  wrong  to  its  solitary  effects?  Can  a  man 
separate  himself  from  his  shadow  ?  Let  no  one, especial- 
ly the  young,  deceive  himself  as  to  the  inexorable 
laws  of  all  things.  The  character  of  actions  becomes 
the  character  of  the  actors.  The  bed  of  mineral  satu- 
rates the  stream  that  passses  over  it.  Wrong-doing 
poisons  all  subsequent  life.  Evils  change,  but  never 
die.  Philosophize  about  it  as  we  may,  we  cannot  be 
blind  to  the  universal  fact  that  somehow,  in  the  end, 
right  gets  even  with  each  wrong.  As  said  before,  the 
law  of  equivalence,  or  compensation,  is  the  most  ter- 
rible of  certainties  to  all  who  do   wrong.     Deferred 


266       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

payments  only  accumulate  the  debt.  Money  loaned 
must  come  back  with  interest.  Time  becomes  an  aw- 
ful and  avenging  factor.  It  neither  conceals  nor  for- 
gets ;  but  as  seconds  added  to  seconds  make  up  the 
ages,  so  does  a  retribution  to  come  enlarge  and  inten- 
sify itself.  Wrong  is  immortal.  Moral  equilibriums 
are  inevitable.  Let  every  man  who  has  broken  a 
moral  law  know  that,  whether  asleep  or  awake,  in 
whatever  continent  or  zone  he  may  be,  the  remorse- 
less law  of  correlation,  of  equivalence,  of  compensa- 
tion, of  equilibration,  is  ever  in  pursuit,  and  knows 
exactly  where  and  when  to  find  him  for  reparation  or 
for  punishment.  The  police  of  the  universe  is  ubiq- 
uitous, its  justice  infallible,  and  its  punishments  com- 
plete and  resistless. 


LECTURE  VI. 


METHOD    OF    CORRELATION   OF   FORCES. 

i.  Correlation  between  unconscious  forces.  This  lec- 
ture extends  and  applies  the  principles  of  the  preceding 
lecture.  What  is  force?  Whatever  moves  matter  is 
force.  I  take  the  bulb  of  the  thermometer  in  my  hand 
by  the  act  of  my  will-force,  and  the  mercury  rises  in 
the  tube  by  a  force  that  is  not  the  act  of  my  will.  I  am 
conscious  of  the  will-force  that  takes  hold  of  the  ther- 
mometer, but  I  am  not  conscious  of  the  action  of  the 
heat-force  that  moves  the  mercury  up  the  tube.  One 
force,  therefore,  is  conscious  and  personal ;  and  the 
other  is  unconscious  and  impersonal.  The  inverse 
correlation  of  the  unconscious  and  impersonal  forces 
that  we  are  now  to  consider,  will  suffice  to  explain 
the  direct  correlation  of  these  forces  as  well. 

This  supernatural  will-power  manifests  both  matter 
forces,  such  as  heat,  electricity  and  gravitation,  and 
also  mind  force,  such  as  animal  will,  conscious  and 
personal  in  man,  and  unconscious  and  impersonal  in 
animals  below  man.  Correlative  forces  are  exchanged 
— blind  matter  force  with  blind  matter  force,  as  heat 
with  electricity,  and  conscious,  superhuman  mind 
force,  with  conscious  human  mind  force,  as  when  man 


268        The  philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

gives  up  his  own  will  and  takes  God's  will — the  human 
and  the  superhuman  wills  concurring. 

Grove  says  that  the  term  correlative  means  a  nec- 
essary, mutual  or  reciprocal  dependence  of  two  ideas, 
inseparable  even  in  mental  conception  ;  thus  the  idea 
of  height  cannot  exist  without  involving  the  idea  of  its 
correlative  depth ;  the  idea  of  parent  cannot  exist 
without  involving  the  idea  of  offspring.  There  are, 
for  example,  many  facts  which  cannot  take  place  with- 
out involving  the  other ;  one  arm  of  a  lever  cannot 
be  depressed  without  the  other  being  elevated  ;  the 
finger  cannot  press  the  table  without  the  table  press- 
ing the  finder. 

Force  is  force,  and  if  impersonal  forces  may  thus 
be  correlated,  exchanged,  bartered,  so  much  of  one 
for  so  much  of  another,  why  may  not  personal  force 
be  correlated  ?  Force  is  a  mode  of  power,  and  power 
is  will,  and  will  is  a  personal  attribute  of  choice 
coupled  with  an  attempt  to  realize  itself,  and  why  may 
not  the  personal  will  force  of  one  be  exchanged  or 
correlated  with  the  personal  will  force  of  another? 
And  why  may  not  the  superhuman  will  force  of  an 
infinite  person  be  correlated  with  the  human  will 
force  of  a  finite  person  ? 

Grove,  speaking  of  the  physical  forces,  viz.:  heat, 
electricity,  magnetism,  chemical  affinity  and  motion, 
says  that  they  are  all  correlative,  or  have  reciprocal 
dependence ;  that  neither,  taken  abstractedly,  can  be 
said  to  be  the  essential  cause  of  the  other,  but  that 
either  may  produce  or  be  convertible  into  any  of  the 
others ;  thus  heat  may  mediately  or  immediately  pro- 
duce electricity,  electricity  may  produce  heat ;  and  so 


Correlation  a  Method.  269 

of  the  rest.  (Grove  on  Correlation  of  Forces,  p.  19.) 
But  one  force  cannot  be  said  to  produce  or  cause 
another.  The  going  of  one  force  may  be  the  occasion- 
but  is  not  the  cause  of  the  coming  of  the  other,  nor 
does  a  retiring  force  become  another  force  by  the  mo- 
tion or  act  of  retiring.  The  maximizing  of  the  human 
will  cannot  cause  or  compel  the  minimizing  of  the 
superhuman  will,  and  the  reverse.  We  cannot  explain 
this  any  more  than  we  can  explain  why  any  one  force 
maximizes  as  some  other  force  minimizes.  Science 
tells  us  that  this  is  a  fact,  and  history  and  observation 
tell  us  that  the  other  is  a  fact  also.  The  correlation 
of  mind-forces  is  as  certain  as  the  correlation  of  mat- 
ter-forces— that  is,  as  will  is  force,  and  as  force  cor- 
relates, a  fortiori  does  will  correlate. 

Correlation  is  a  method,  and  as  method  it  implies 
will  and  intelligence.  If  supernatural  intelligence  and 
will  power  be  denied,  so  all  methods  in  the  universe 
must  be  denied.  Method  of  impersonal  and  unintelli- 
gent power  is  unthinkable. 

Correlation  is  neither  a  process,  a  creation  nor  a 
generation.  It  is  a  method.  It  is  merely  an  equiva- 
lency of  forces  or  things — so  much  of  one  for  so  much 
of  something  else  as  its  correlative.  It  neither  pro- 
duces atomic  matter,  nor  organizes  atomic  matter,  nor 
vitalizes  atomic  matter,  nor  personalizes  atomic  mat- 
ter. It  deals  with  matter  and  force  furnished  to  its 
hand,  already  existing. 

The  correlation  or  conservation  of  force  is  thought 
by  some  to  be  the  distinguishing  discovery  of  the  age; 
but  that  depends  upon  what  force  is,  and  what  corre- 
lation is.  We  expect  to  show  that  there  are  no  forces 


2  jo       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

as  such  to  be  correlated  ;  and  that  all  that  correlation 
is,  is  the  correlative  manifestations  of  the  one  super- 
natural willpower.  In  any  one  correlative  act,  the 
correlative  forces  as  force,  are  two,  but  the  Power  is 
one.  Supernatural  will  is  the  one  power,  and  natural 
force  is  a  special  manifestation  of  this  supernatural 
power. 

The  scope  of  what  Mr.  Spencer  calls  the  process  of 
evolution,  is  a  denial  of  creation,  and  is  only  a  method 
of  correlation.  As  stated  by  Mr.  Spencer,  "  the  affirm- 
ation of  universal  evolution  is,  in  itself,  the  negation 
of  the  absolute  commencement  of  anything."  Mr. 
Spencer  says  :  "  Evolution  is  an  integration  of  matter, 
and  concomitant  dissipation  of  motion."  This  is  sim- 
ply a  method  of  correlation  ;  and  nothing  more.a 

In  other  words,  evolution  defined  as  a  method  is  the 
eternal  correlation  of  eternal  matter.  Evolution 
described  as  a  process  has  been  considered  before. 
We  have  seen  that  after  the  order  of  supernature 
in  nature,   when   things  have  been  produced,  as  in 


(a)  We  may  here  see  : 

Minimum  of   Integra-  p 
tion. 


B 


Maximum  of   Integra- 
tion. 


Maximum  of  Motion . 


Minimum  of  Motion. 


Correlation  not  Evolution.  271 

the  creative  method,  and  after  their  propagation 
has  been  delegated,  as  in  the  organic,  genetic  method, 
Supernatural  Power  exchanges  its  several  substances 
and  forces,  one  with  another,  in  a  method  of  equiva- 
lence, called  the  method  of  Correlation.  This  is  seen 
in  objects  in  nature  without  wills,  and  in  objects  in 
nature  with  wills.  Correlations  in  objects  without 
wills,  Mr.  Spencer  calls  evolution,  as  when  Power  or 
the  one  Supernatural  Will  correlates  the  natural 
things  of  matter  and  motion.  He  says,  "the  formula 
finally  is :  Evolution  is  the  integration  of  matter,  and 
eoncomitant  dissipation  of  motion;  during  zvhich  the 
matter  passes  from  an  indefinite,  incoJierent  homogeneity \ 
to  a  definite,  coherent  heterogeneity ;  and  during  which 
the  retained  motion  undergoes  a  parallel  transformation." 
(F.  P.,  §  145.)  If  this  is  a  definition  of  evolution,  then 
what  is  correlation  ?  If  this  is  a  definition  of  correla- 
tion, then  what  is  evolution?  The  first  part  of  the 
above  definition  is  of  a  mechanical  action,  and  the 
second  part  is  the  description  of  a  mechanical  result. 
Mr.  Spencer's  inaccuracies  are  the  more  remarkable, 
as  he  aspires  to  formulate  a  synthetic  philosophy. 
He  admits  that  "  Involution  would  much  more  truly 
express  the  nature  of  the  process "  which  he  calls 
Evolution.  As  an  authority  he  should  have  used  the 
word  he  ought  to  have  used,  and  have  corrected 
popular  usage,  if  wrong.  But  the  word  involution, 
admits  extrinsic  force,  would  open  the  door  to  the 
theistic  idea  of  personal  power;  and  so  he  retains 
the  impersonal  idea  of  evolution  from  intrinsic  power. 
But  he  is  no  more  fortunate  in  his  definition  of  evo- 
lution ;  for,  as  he  defines  it,  evolution  is  a  method  of 


272        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

correlation  between  matter  and  motion,  producing 
nothing  and  by  nothing  produced. 

Mr.  Spencer  says:  "  The  processes  thus  everywhere 
in  antagonism,  and  everywhere  gaining  now  a  tem- 
porary and  now  a  more  or  less  permanent  triumph 
over  the  other,  we  call  Evolution  and  Dissolution. 
Evolution  under  its  simplest  and  most  general  aspect 
is  the  integration  of  matter  and  concomitant  dissipa- 
tion of  motion  ;  while  Dissolution  is  the  absorption 
of  motion  and  concomitant  disintegration  of  matter." 
(F.  P.,  §  97.)  The  phrases,  "  dissipation  of  motion  " 
and  "  absorption  of  motion,"  do  not  convey  accurate 
ideas.  Motion  as  power  in  action  may  cease,  but  no 
power,  active  or  inactive,  can  be  dissipated.  Motion 
may  cease,  but  not  be  absorbed,  for  that  cannot  be 
absorbed  which  does  not  exist.  Motion  absorbs 
force  so  far  as  it  absorbs  anything,  and  force  causes 
motion,  but  there  is  no  motion  to  be  absorbed  until 
force  creates  it.  Force  may  be  reflected,  transmitted, 
or  distributed,  but  not  motion.  Motion  ceases,  but 
is  not  dissipated  ;  it  is  caused,  but  not  absorbed. 

Mr.  Spencer  says  :  "  We  shall  everywhere  mean  by 
evolution,  the  process  which  is  always  an  integration 
of  matter  and  dissipation  of  motion."  (F.  P.,  §  97.) 
The  method  of  the  correlation  of  matter  and  motion 
is  thus  called  a  process  of  evolution.  This  assumes 
the  existence  of  matter  and  motion,  but  does  not 
account  for  the  origin  of  either.  Again,  Mr.  S.  says: 
"  Evolution  is  the  passage  of  matter  from  a  diffused 
to  an  aggregated  state.  (F.  P.,  §  139.)  So,  then,  Mr. 
Spencer's  definition  and  description  of  evolution, 
which  should  be  called  correlation  instead  of  evolu- 


Pre-existing  Power.  2  7 


3 


tion,  teach  a  pre-existing  Power,  pre-existing  matter 
and  a  pre-existing,  diffused  state  of  matter. 

We  have  already  seen  that  the  mere  mechanical 
method  of  correlation  is,  the  fixed  correspondence 
of  states  and  motions,  and  the  equivalence  of  quanti- 
ties. But  whether  things  are  manifested  in  a  process 
of  evolution  or  are  equivalently  correlated,  we  must 
account  for  the  commencement  of  the  things  them- 
selves. Evolution  does  not  do  this ;  for  evolution 
does  not  consider  or  admit  the  absolute  commence- 
ment of  anything,  Correlation  does  not  account  for 
things ;  for  it  is  only  a  method  of  the  equivalence  of 
things.  So,  under  the  treatment  of  the  correlation 
of  things,  we  are  attracted  back  to  the  consideration 
of  the  origin  of  things  themselves.  In  correlation 
there  is : 

(a)  Pre-existing  Power.  The  consideration  of 
this  we  have  somewhat  anticipated.  How  long  has 
this  Power  pre-existed  ?  Mr.  Spencer  speaks  of  it  as 
a  Power  of  which  the  nature  remains  forever  incon- 
ceivable, and  to  which  no  limit  in  Time  or  Space  can 
be  imagined."     (F.  P.,  §  194.) 

We  must  not  understand  that  the  integration  of 
matter  is  one  act  and  the  dissipation  of  motion  is 
another.  The  one  wedge  makes  two  forms  of  matter. 
They  are  correlative  results  of  the  same  act  of  Power ; 
just  as  the  quantity  of  space  on  one  side  of  the  diag- 
onal of  a  square  is  positively  more  as  the  other  side 
is  negatively  less;  or  just  as  the  space  on  one  side 
of  a  perpendicular  line  positively  increases  as  the 
space  on  the  other  side  positively  increases. 

As,  according  to  Parmenides,  unitv  excludes  plu- 

18 


274       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

rality,  so  the  unity  of  power  excludes  the  plurality 
of  forces.  Forces  are  but  several  radiations  of  one 
power — many  streams  from  one  fountain.  We  may 
call  energies  of  power  forces,  but  the  name  does  not 
change  the  essence.  For  the  sake  of  convenience  we 
may  call  one  manifestation  of  will-power  heat  and 
another  electricity  ;  but  after  all,  force  is  simply  will- 
power doing  different  things  under  different  names. 

Omnipresent  and  omniscient  will  envelopes,  per- 
vades and  is  the  force  of  all  phenomena.  When 
personal,  supernatural  power  impersonalizes  itself  as 
so-called  natural  force,  so  much  is  this  so-called 
natural  force  and  supernatural  power  one  and  the 
same,  that  while  we  worship  the  personal  power,  we 
should  not  fail  to  see  the  action  of  Supernatural 
Will  in  what  is  called  impersonal  force. 

There  is  a  personal  pantheism  that  is  not  imperson- 
al atheism,  and  there  is  a  personality  in  theism  that  is 
pantheistic  in  presence.  Theism  and  personal  pan- 
theism are  human  expressions  for  the  one,  omnipresent 
person  of  God.  God  is  the  name  of  the  infinite  Power  ; 
and  nature  is  the  name  of  its  finite  manifestation. 

We  have  seen  that  Will  is  Power — that  Power  mani- 
fests itself  as  force — that  force  is  said  to  be  exchanged 
or  correlated  with  force,  as  heat  with  electricity,  or 
energy  with  velocity  ;  but,  after  all,  forces  are  only 
energies  of  the  one  supernatural  Will-Power,  and  are 
not  exchanged  or  correlated  at  all.  When  Will- 
Power  withdraws  a  given  amount  of  energy  of  one 
kind  ipso  facto,  it  manifests  an  equivalent  amount  of 
some  other  kind.  The  correlation  is  between  the  dif- 
ferent  decisions  of  the    Will-Power  within    the  will 


One  Will  Doing  two  Things.  275 

itself,  not  between  the  so-called  forces  or  energies 
themselves.  As  Will  ceases  to  do  one  thing,  it  begins 
to  do  some  other  corresponding  thing.  There  is  no 
moment  of  time,  no  object  in  space,  no  sound  in  the 
air,  no  change  of  relations  not  subject  to  the  omni- 
present, unsuspended,  ever  effective,  sole  power  of 
God's  will.  As  all  fingers  are  parts  of  the  hand,  all 
members  parts  of  the  body,  all  colors  parts  of  light,  so 
all  forces  are  special  manifestations  of  one  Power. 
Where  gravitation  is,  there  is  God's  will ;  and  so 
where  heat,  electricity,  or  chemic  affinity  is,  there  is 
His  will.  If  force  is  will,  there  can  be  no  correlation 
of  force,  for  there  can  be  no  correlation  of  God's 
will.  That  will  may  act  uniformily,  and  we  may  call 
it  law,  or  it  may  specially  will  those  phenomena  that 
we  call  providence  and  miracles.  This  supernatural 
Will- Power  manifests  both  a  positive  and  a  negative 
condition  ;  that  is,  the  negative  is  the  absence  of  the 
positive.  To  will  atoms  to  move,  is  to  will  that  thev 
shall  not  be  at  rest.  To  will  that  atoms  be  at  rest,  is 
to  will  that  they  shall  not  move.  We  see  how  star- 
light fades  into  day-light,  and  day-light  fades  into  star- 
light ;  we  see  how  the  leaf  gives  out  the  carbon  at 
night  and  the  oxygen  in  the  da}7 ;  we  see  when  the 
upper  chamber  of  the  hour-glass  is  empty,  the  lower 
is  full ;  we  rind  in  ourselves  personal  mind  and  imper- 
sonal matter.  Why  should  not  the  supernatural 
Power-Being  exist  in  any  condition  of  his  own  choos- 
ing? There  is  now  in  and.  around  each  one  of  us, 
personal  minds  and  impersonal  matter;  and  the  per- 
sonal and  the  impersonal  are  so  blended  or  inter, 
mingled  in  ourselves  that   we  cannot  separate   their 


276        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

boundaries  any  more  than  we  can  say  how  far  in  the 
outside  of  a  block  goes  or  how  far  out  the  inside 
comes.  Personification  of  nature  abounds  in  the 
Bible.  Is  personification  of  trees,  rocks  and  seas  only 
figures  of  oriental  rhetoric,  or  is  it  expressive  of  a  fact 
of  personality  in  the  awful  totality  and  constitution  of 
things?  The  power  and  presence  of  a  personal  God 
are  around  and  in  impersonal  rocks  and  trees  that  the 
heathen  personify  as  God.  Indeed,  while  they  see  no 
similitude  yet  they  hear  a  voice. 

The  Power  to  manifest  is  the  Power  to  create,  and 
the  Power  to  create  is  the  Power  to  generate,  and  the 
Power  to  generate  is  the  Power  to  correlate.  We 
infer  that  this  power  has  an  underived  Will,  because 
from  this  all-manifesting  Power,  we  derive  our  own 
Will.  As  this  Power  manifests  matter  and  motion  as 
its  symbols,  it  integrates  its  symbol  of  matter,  and  dis- 
sipates its  symbol  of  motion,  in  a  method  of  correla- 
tion, having  less  of  one  as  it  has  much  of  the  other, 
and  the  reverse. 

The  integration  of  matter  and  the  dissipation  of 
motion  is  simply  the  correlation  between  matter  and 
force  ;  but,  as  all  force  is  Will,  the  correlation  is  really 
between  matter  and  Will.  But,  as  matter  itself  is  only 
a  manifestation  of  Will,  the  correlation  defined  as 
evolution,  is  essentially  between  modes  of  Will  —  Will 
in  a  material  manifestation  and  Will  manifested  as 
force  in  motion.  Subjective  Will-Power  objectifies 
itself  as  matter  and  as  motion.  What  is  called  cor- 
relation of  force  is  simply  that  one  manifestation  of 
God's  will  becomes  less  as  another  manifestation 
becomes  more  ;  or  rather  that,  in  willing  one  thing  he 


Power  Manifests  Different  Forces.         277 

does  not  will  another,  its  opposite.  So,  in  willing- 
integration  of  matter  he  does  not  will  its  disintegra- 
tion. Will,  as  force,  attracts  ;  and  Will,  as  force, 
repels.  Both  forces  are  but  phases  of  one  Power,  and 
correlate  according  to  mass  and  distance.  It  is  called 
integration  when  the  attractive  force  is  greater  than 
the  repellent;  it  is  called  disintegration,  when  the 
repellent  force  is  greater  than  the  attractive ;  so  that 
what  is  called  evolution,  which  really  is  correlation, 
may  be  defined  to  be  the  integration  through  attrac- 
tion of  diffused  matter  or  the  disintegration  through 
repulsion  of  concentrated  matter,  as  the  strength  of 
the  one  force  may  be.  The  dissipation  of  motion  is 
the  dissipation  of  force  ;  and  the  absorption  of  motion 
is  the  absorption  of  force;  and  force  is  Will.  Super- 
natural Will  is  natural  force. 

Power  manifests  itself  in  nature  as  one  kind  of 
Force  at  one  time,  and  as  another  kind  of  Force  at 
another.  Power  integrates  its  matter  as  the  force  of 
attraction,  and  it  disintegrates  its  matter  under  the 
force  of  repulsion.  One  Power  manifests  itself  as 
many  forces ;  but  many  forces  sympathize  as  one 
Power.  Thus  it  is,  that  the  correlation  between  mat- 
ter and  motion  is  really  the  correlation  between  two 
different  manifestations  of  the  same  Power— that  is 
between  supernatural  Power  as  motion  and  supernat- 
ural Power  in  the  shape  of  matter;  in  other  words, 
Power  manifests  itself  as  matter,  and  then,  as  force, 
controls  the  matter  it  manifested  as  Power.  One  act 
of  God's  will  as  a  force  is  part  of  God's  will  mani- 
fested as  matter ;  and  so  one  act  of  God's  will  does 
not  conflict  with  another  act  of  God's  will  as  such. 


278        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

Strictly  speaking,  one  Power  is  doing-  it  all  (see  Figs. 
142,  Lect.  V.),  just  as  a  diagonal  drawn  in  a  square 
makes  two  opposite  figures,  one  increasing  as  the  oth- 
er decreases  ;  or,  using  the  diagonal  as  a  perpendicu- 
lar, one  figure  increases  as  the  other  increases.  Power 
cannot  conflict  with  itself;  as  by  one  act  of  our  will 
we  raise  one  hand  and  lower  the  other.  One  Power, 
at  the  same  moment,  does  different  if  not  opposite 
things ;  even  as  the  will  of  the  musician  variously 
moves  the  several  fingers  of  the  same  hand,  at  the 
same  moment.  The  many  facts  can  have  but  one 
factor.  We  say  that  matter  is  a  manifestation  of  God's 
will ;  the  diffusion  of  matter  is  a  manifestation  of  the 
same  will;  the  integration  of  this  matter  is  by  the 
same  Will  :  its  disintegration  is  an  opposite  will  of  the 
same  Power.  Motion  does  not  correlate  or  exchange 
with  matter;  but  the  Will-Power  that  integrates  mat- 
ter at  one  moment  disintegrates  the  same  matter  in 
the  next.  There  are  not  two  forces,  but  two  mani- 
festations of  one  force  Power.  Supernatural  will  at 
one  moment  pulls  diffused  matter  together,  and  in  the 
next  it  pushes  aggregate  matter  apart.  The  same  Will 
that  at  one  moment  manifests  heat,  the  next  moment 
ceases  that  act  of  willing,  and  wills  that  there  shall  be 
an  equivalent  amount  of  electricity.  There  is  one 
Will,  not  two  forces  ;  and  yet  the  two  manifestations 
of  the  one  Will  are  called  two  forces. 

Science  can  have  as  much  certainty  in  this  view  of 
the  mystery  of  phenomena  as  it  could  have  in  any 
impersonal  law.  Will  can  be  uniform  as  law.  Su- 
pernatural Will-Power  can  and  has  made  itself  cer- 
tain in  nature  ;  but  supernature  is  not  the  slave  of  its 


Plus  and  Minus  Force.  279 

own  uniformity.  It  can  be  multiform  and  variant. 
That  it  is  uniform  is  a  uniformity  that  it  prescribes 
to  itself.  Science  can  rely  upon  the  uniformity  of 
omniscience,  but  it  can  have  none  upon  that  of  nesci- 
ence. We  may  confidently  expect  that  what  infinite 
intelligence  saw  to  be  best  in  the  past,  it  will  see  to 
be  best  for  the  future,  or  that  compensations  in  phe- 
nomena will  make  something  better.  But  who  can 
know  what  a  universe  without  sense  or  intelligence 
may  do?  A  universe  without  an  intelligent  plan 
goes  not  as  it  pleases  but  as  it  happens. 

Power,  like  a  wedge,  works  two  ways  at  once. 
One  act  divides  an  apple  into  two  parts.  The  anti- 
thesis of  Power  is  exhibited  when  matter  inte- 
grates as  motion  dissipates,  just  as  the  pendulum 
swinging  between  two  points  lengthens  the  distance 
behind  it  as  it  shortens  the  distance  before  it,  or  as 
the  curved  line  convexes  one  side  as  it  concaves  the 
other.     The  loss  ol  one  is  the  gain  of  the  other. 

At  the  margin  of  the  sea,  the  Pillar  of  God,  was 
light  to  the  Israelites  and  darkness  to  the  Egyptians. 
Apparently  conflicting  phenomena  are  opposite  sides 
of  one  Power.  Power  is  the  center  of  all  circum- 
ferences, and  the  unity  of  all  pluralities.  One  Power 
is  at  the  angle  where  centripetalism  and  centrifugal- 
ism  diverge.  The  one  Power  has  two  supplemental 
motions  of  integration  and  disintegration.  The 
power  that  at  one  moment  is  integrating  matter,  is 
disintegrating  matter  at  the  next.  The  correlation 
is  not  between  matter  and  motion,  but  between  a 
diffused  cjndition  of  matter,  and  a  condensed  con- 
dition   of    matter.      Uniform    power   has    multiform 


280       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

manifestations.  The  power  that  is  behind  any  one 
manifestation  is  behind  them  all. 

How  the  integration  of  matter  and  the  dissipation 
of  motion,  could  ever  result  in  life,  evolutionists  do 
not  explain.  It  is  exactly  in  this  nexus  between  mat- 
ter and  life,  that  evolution  without  a  living  God, 
breaks  down.  There  must  be  some  uniformity  to 
harmonize  all  multiformities,  whether  that  uniformity 
be  called  impersonal  Power  or  a  personal  God. 
With  a  God,  both  correlation  and  evolution,  as  two 
actual  among  other  possible  methods  of  God,  need 
not  be  denied.  In  the  methods  we  see  God.  To 
admit  one  is  to  prove  the  other.  Integration  and 
disintegration  of  matter  are  opposite  manifestations 
of  the  same  Power.  Sometimes  that  Power  acts  as 
a  wedge,  and  sometimes  as  a  compress ;  in  other 
words,  sometimes  Power  is  the  power  of  centripet- 
alism,  pulling  diffused  atoms  together;  and  some- 
times it  is  the  Power  of  centrifugalism,  pulling 
concentrated  atoms  apart.  There  are  not  two  powers 
contending  in  the  mastery ;  but  the  Power  is  the  one 
Power  unlimited  in  Time  and  Space,  harmonizing  its 
movements.  It  is  the  supernatural  managing  the 
natural,  and  is,  in  a  sense,  itself  both. 

Supernatural  Power  has  not  left  itself  without 
witness.  There  are  three  points  in  the  process  of 
evolution,  when  that  Supernatural  Power  is  obviously 
present  in  direct  action.  The  first  point  is  where 
motion  begins  to  dissipate  and  matter  to  integrate. 
The  second  point  is  when  repulsive  motion  begins  to 
be  absorbed,  and  integrated  matter  to  disintegrate. 
The  third  point  is  where  the  process  of  special  evolu- 


Power  has  no  Quantity.  281 

tion  stops  and  the  process  of  special  dissolution 
begins.  The  processes  of  evolution  and  dissolution 
are  natural :  the  power  that  stops  one  and  begins  the 
other  is  supernatural.  Universal  evolution  is  not 
followed  by  universal  dissolution.  Special  dissolu- 
tions are  parts  of  universal  evolution. 

Power  of  unfixed  quantity  manifests  itself  as  force 
of  unfixed  quantity.  Evolution  has  rhythm,  but  no 
exhaustion,  because  supernatural  will  has  no  exhaus 
tion.  Omnipotent  Will  has  omnipotent  energies. 
Mr.  Spencer  says,  on  the  contrary,  that  "  evolution 
has  an  impassable  limit."  (F.  P.,  §  170.)  He  says 
that  "  Motion  as  well  as  Matter  being  fixed  in  quan- 
tity, it  would  seem  that  the  change  in  the  distribution 
of  Matter  which  motion  effects,  coming  to  a  limit  in 
whichever  direction  it  is  carried,  the  indestructible 
motion  thereupon  necessities  a  reverse  distribution. 
Apparently,  the  universal  co-existent  forces  of  attrac- 
tion and  repulsion,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  necessi- 
tate rhythm  in  all  minor  changes  throughout  the 
Universe,  also  necessitate  rhythm  in  the  totality  of 
its  changes  —produce  now  an  immeasurable  period 
during  which  the  attractive  forces  predominating, 
cause  universal  concentration,  and  then  an  immeasur- 
able period  during  which  the  repulsion  forces  pre- 
dominating, cause  universal  diffusion — alternate  eras 
of  Evolution  and  Dissolution."  (F.  P.,  §  183.)  [Ital- 
ics our  own.] 

But  where  is  the  evidence  that  the  quantity  of 
Matter  and  Motion  is  fixed  ?  Mr.  S.  says  "  the  quan- 
tity of  Force  remains  always  the  same."  (F.  P.,  §  58.) 
But  that  depends  on  what  is  force.     The  action  of 


282       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

force  may  be  limited,  but  its  quantity  is  not  fixed. 
Unlimited  Power  may  have  changeable  limits  of 
force^.  In  our  personal  consciousness,  and  according 
to  the  teachings  of  Herschell,  Wallace,  and  Carpen- 
ter, we  know  of  no  other  source  of  power  or  force 
in  ourselves  than  that  of  our  wills.  If  Will  is  Power 
and  Power  is  force,  force  can  no  more  be  an  abso- 
lutely fixed  quantity ;  for  force  and  Will  are  only 
different  names  for  the  same  power.  Natural  force 
is  Supernatural  Will-Power.  The  quantity  of  motion 
as  Will  is  unfixed,  for  Will  is  a  Power,  but  not  a  fixed 
Power  or  force;  and,  if  we  may  assign  Will  as  a 
cause  for  human  motion  in  human,  why  may  we  not 
expect  to  find  superhuman  Will  a  cause  for  superhu- 
man motion  ?  If  Will  is  fixed,  it  is  fixed  by  the  Will 
itself,  and  the  Will  may  unfix  itself. 

The  distinct  formula  is,  that  all  things  are  manifes- 
tations of  Power.  Is  motion  a  manifestation  of  this 
Power,  or  is  it  this  Power  itself  in  action  ?  If  motion 
is  unlimited  Power  itself  in  action,  then,  of  course, 
the  quantity  of  motion  is  not  fixed,  for  unlimited 
Power  is  not  fixed,  and  to  say  that  Power  unlimited 
in  Time  or  Space  is  limited  in  matter  or  motion,  is  a 
contradiction.  Indeed,  Power  cannot  be  limited  in 
anything. 

Scientists  admit  that  they  do  not  know  what  matter 
is.  How,  then,  can  they  advance  the  dogma,  that  the 
quantity  of  matter  is  fixed  and  that  matter  can  be 
neither  created  nor  destroyed  ?  If  Power  materializes, 
or  if  Will  materializes,  or  if  matter  mentalizes,  matter 
cannot  be  a  fixed  quantity.  Matter  is  much  or  little 
as    Power    may    manifest    of  itself,  or  as    Will    may 


Power  Manifests  Form.  283 

choose  to  make  out  of  itself;  whether  you  call  it 
Power  or  Will,  that  takes  form.  The  essence  of  mat- 
ter being  unknown,  its  quantity  cannot  be  said  to  be 
fixed ;  and  where  we  do  not  know  we  should  not  say. 

If  all  things  are  manifestations  of  Power  does  this 
Power  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  rhythmic  limit 
and  alternatives  of  Evolution  and  Dissolution  ?  Ac- 
cording to  the  notion  that  Matter  and  Motion  have  a 
fixed  quantity,  evolution  and  dissolution  would  seem 
to  result  from  an  exhaustion  of  force.  But  the  Power 
of  the  universe  has  no  limits  in  Time  or  Space.  If, 
then,  motion  has  no  limits  in  unlimited  Power,  mo- 
tion must  be  limited  if  at  all,  because  Power  saw  fit 
to  limit  it.  And  here  we  may  ask,  if  Power  limits 
motion  or  matter,  does  Power  act  intelligently  or  un- 
intelligently  ? 

If  all  things  are  manifestations  of  Power,  then  those 
manifestations  imply  that  Power  must  control  its  own 
manifestations.  If  matter  and  motion  are  manifesta- 
tions of  this  Power,  either  their  quantity  is  fixed  or 
not  fixed  by  that  Power— in  short,  they  do  not  fix  or 
limit  themselves.  Or  are  we  to  conclude  that  matter 
and  motion  are  limited,  because  unlimited  Power 
must  limit  them  in  the  nature  of  things?  Unlimited 
power  is  its  own  limit.  When  agnostic  speculation 
singles  out  the  one  attribute  of  Power  from  the  other 
attributes  of  the  Supernatural  Person  we  call  God, 
and  pass  by  the  other  attributes  of  intelligence,  and 
holiness  unnoticed,  it  entangles  itself  in  the  perplex- 
ity of  accounting  for  all  things  by  mere  power,  when 
the  evidence  of  supernatural  intelligence  is  no  less 
than  is  the  evidence  of  supernatural  power.     But,  if 


284       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

mere  power  is  all,  then  Power  materializes,  for  there 
is  matter  ;  Power  mentalizes,  for  there  is  mind  ;  Power 
combines,  for  there  is  combination  ;  Power  vitalizes, 
for  there  is  life  ;  Power  personalizes,  for  there  are  per- 
sons. We  see  that  power,  whether  personal  or  im- 
personal, intelligent  or  unintelligent,  both  begins  and 
continues  things — that  is,  it  both  originates  and  trans- 
forms. Agnostic  science  ignores  the  origin  of  the 
universe,  for  which  religion  accounts,  and  occupies 
itself  only  with  the  transformations  of  the  organic 
matters  of  the  universe,  which  it  calls  evolution,  and 
which  religion  calls  methods  of  Power  in  correlation. 

Kb)  Pre-existent  matter.  But  how  has  matter  pre- 
existed ?  As  atoms,  molecules  or  masses?  We  are 
told  that  its  first  form  was  an  atom.  Was  that  atom 
evolved  out  of  nothing  or  created  out  of  nothing? 
Is  the  atom  eternal  ?  We  beg  to  repeat  that  matter 
could  not  be  said  to  be  until  it  was  known  to  be  ;  and 
when  it  was  known  to  be  there  was  mind  to  know  it. 
If  matter  is  not  only  eternal,  but  has  been  eternally 
known  to  be,  then  there  has  been  eternal  mind  to  know. 
Are  there  two  eternals,  or  if  only  one,  then,  was  eter- 
nal mind  eternal  matter,  or  eternal  matter  eternal 
mind  ? 

Evolution  is  limited  to  the  mere  behaviour  or  cor- 
relation of  motion  and  of  the  molecules  of  matter,  not 
of  an  atom  of  matter,  as  an  atom.  An  atom  is  already 
integrated,  and  no  dissipation  of  motion  can  make  it 
more  integrated.  Therefore,  evolution  does  not  apply 
to  matter  as  matter,  but  only  to  matter  in  a  diffused 
or  in  a  diffusable  condition.  But  an  atom  can  neither 
be  more  integrated  or  more  diffused  than  it  is  in  itself. 


Pre-existent  Matter,  285 

Mr.  Spencer  protests  that  he  is  not  working  out  a 
materialistic  system  (1  Biol.  490),  but  if  he  were  a  ma- 
terialist he  would  believe  in  the  eternity  of  matter ; 
and  though  he  does  not  believe  in  the  eternity  of  mat- 
ter, he  does  not  believe  in  its  creation  ;  for  that  would 
be  the  commencement  of  matter,  which  he  denies. 
With  him  all  that  now  is,  is  all  that  ever  has  been  ; 
and  all  that  ever  will  be,  is  all  that  now  is.  Mr. 
Spencer  emphatically  denies  that  he  is  bound  to  as- 
sume a  first  organism  in  organic  nature,  but  he  can- 
not deny  that  he  assumes  a  first  atom  in  inorganic 
nature.  According  to  his  theory,  there  could  be  no 
such  commencement ;  for  he  says,  we  have  seen,  that 
"  the  affirmation  of  universal  evolution  is  in  itself  a 
negation  of  an  absolute  commencement  of  anything." 
That  which  has  never  commenced  and  is  not  eternal 
when  all  is  eternal,  is  not  at  all.  So,  as  matter  is 
neither  eternal  or  has  a  commencement,  there  is  no 
matter.  And  yet,  he  everywhere  means  by  evolution 
the  process  which  is  always  an  integration  of  matter. 
If  Mr.  Spencer  does  not  mean  to  assume  matter,  when 
he  says  that  it  integrates,  he  must  go  back  and  show 
how  matter,  before  it  integrates,  came  to'be  matter  at 
all. 

If  Power  materializes,  and  evolution  is  the  integra 
tion  of  matter,  then  evolution  is  the  integration  of 
materialized  Power — in  other  words,  matter  is  only  a 
form  of  Power.  Integration  of  matter  is  a  new  name 
for  gravitation,  the  centripetalism,  the  unification,  the 
aggregation,  the  synthesis  of  matter.  It  is  simply  a 
new  description  of  old  ideas.  As  we  have  said,  evo- 
lution is  the  paradox  expressed  by  Plato  in  his  Par- 


286        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

menides,  that  "  all  unity  tends  to  plurality,  and  all 
plurality  ends  in  unity."  When  did  this  pre-existence 
of  matter  commence?  Mr.  Spencer  says,  as  we  have 
seen,  that  "  the  affirmation  of  universal  evolution  is  in 
itself  a  negation  of  the  absolute  commencement  of 
anything.  He  also  says:  "The  absolute  commence- 
ment of  organic  life  on  the  globe,  I  distinctly  deny." 
(i  Biol.  p.  482.)  But,  we  repeat,  he  cannot  deny  the 
pre-existence  of  the  matter  which  is  integrated  in  evo- 
lution— in  other  words,  the  integration  of  matter  does 
not  originate  the  matter  integrated.  Then  when  did 
matter  begin,  if  ever? 

We  have  said  that  we  start  with  Power,  but  we  do 
not  start  with  evolution  ;  for,  as  evolution  is  the  in- 
tegration of  matter,  there  can  be  no  integration  of 
matter  until  Power  has  materialized  itself,  or  until 
Power  has  manifested,  created,  or  evolved  matter  to 
be  integrated.  The  question  right  here  is,  what  is  the 
nevus  between  power  and  matter?  Did  Power  be- 
come matter  or  did  Power  create  matter  when  there 
was  no  matter?  Infinite  power,  in  manifesting  mat- 
ter, decides  for  itself  whether  it  will  be  matter  or 
create  matter.  Matter  is  manifested  in  either  one  way 
or  the  other. 

We  start  with  omnipresent,  formless  Power.  In 
some  way  Power  manifests  Form.  Omnipotence  is 
parturient  of  all  forms  and  substances,  and  the  cre- 
ation of  something  out  of  nothing  is  no  more  incom- 
prehensible than  that  Power  should  materialize  itself, 
or  that  matter  should  be  eternal,  or  that  matter  should 
mentalize  itself.  And  yet  some  minds,  to  whom  two 
incomprehensibilities  are  equally  difficult,  can  bring 


An  Atom  cannot  Integrate.  287 

themselves  to  accept  one  incomprehensibility  and 
reject  another.  And  yet  to  say  that  matter  is  a  shape 
of  Power  does  seem  more  thinkable  than  to  say  that 
matter  is  eternal  where  there  was  only  eternal  Power. 
If  evolution  is  the  method  of  the  universe,  then  it 
•  covers  inorganic  atoms,  which  must  be  creatively 
evolved,  ab  extra,  or  not  be  evolved  at  all,  as  each 
atom  holds  only  its  own  Power.  One  atom  may  affect 
but  cannot  evolve  or  manifest  another  atom.  Power 
must  manifest  the  atom  before  the  atom  can  take  its 
place  in  the  process  of  correlative  evolution.  But  if 
the  process  of  evolution  is  to  include  the  origin  of 
the  atom,  as  well  as  its  integration,  then  evolution  in- 
cludes more  than  the  integration  of  matter — and  it 
includes  its  origin  as  a  creation  as  well  as  its 
genetic  organisms.  Atoms  are  before  the  integrating 
evolutions  of  atoms.  Evolution  is  the  integration  of 
matter  it  did  not  evolve. 

Nearly  all  systems  of  philosophy  are  cosmological 
and  not  ontological.  They  are  but  methods  of  effects, 
or  how  the  universe  was  constructed,  not  Whence  or 
by  Whom.  To  these  atheistical  systems  the  universe 
is  automatic,  impersonal  and  unintelligent.  From 
Lucretius  down,  we  have  had  the  Matter-system  ; 
from  Plato  down,  we  have  had  the  Idea  or  Mind- 
system  ;  and  now,  in  evolution,  we  have  the  Power- 
system.  Power, as  Power,  is  neither  matter,  nor  mind, 
nor  being  ;  but,  as  modes,  Power  might  be,  as  it  would 
seem,  either  or  neither  or  both.  Power  is  its  own 
measure.  Power  is  its  own  interpreter.  Whether  the 
power  of  evolution  is  or  is  not  one  of  dynamics  or 
internal  Power,  or  of  mechanics  or  external  Power,  it 


288        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

certainly  is  a  problem  of  three  methods.  One  meth- 
od of  Power  is  directly  creative,  as  in  the  origin  of 
the  inorganic  atom  ;  another  is  the  causitive  combina- 
tion of  one  atom  with  another,  where,  of  course, 
there  is  no  life  ;  and  the  other  method  of  Power  is 
derivative,  as  in  organic  nature,  where,  of  course, 
there  is  life.  Mr.  Spencer  chooses  to  magnify  the 
genetic  method  of  organic  nature  by  discussing  and 
formulating  it,  and  to  minify  the  creative  method  of 
inorganic  nature  by  passing  it  over.  Correlation  im- 
plies not  only  pre-existent  power,  pre-existent  matter, 
but  it  implies 

(c)  Matter  pre-existent  in  a  diffused  state.  That 
cannot  come  together  in  integration  which  is  not 
apart  in  disintegration.  Plurality  may  become  unity ; 
but  unity  cannot  become  unity,  because  it  is  already 
unity. 

It  follows  that  matter  not  in  a  diffused  state  is  not 
subject  to  the  process  of  evolution.  One  atom  is 
matter,  and  so  far  as  it  is  an  atom,  it  is  not  in  a  dif- 
fused state,  nor  can  it  ever  be  more  aggregated  in 
and  by  itself  than  it  is.  Several  atoms  may  be  com- 
pounded, as  those  of  oxygen  and  hydrogen  in  water, 
but  each  atom  can  never  be  internally  diffused  or 
changed.  So,  if  evolution  be  the  integration  of  mat- 
ter, the  question  arises,  what  matter,  and  in  what 
quantities?  Matter  in  atoms,  in  molecules  or  in  mass? 
Integration  of  matter  neither  accounts  for  the  atom 
—  matter — to  be  integrated,  in  inorganic  nature,  nor 
does  it  account  for  the  life  in  organic  nature  where 
life  is  the  distinctive  force.  Notice  that  the  integra- 
tion is  of  matter;  not  of  force,  nor  of  Power,  nor  of 
principles;   but  if  evolution  be  possible,  as  defined, 


One  Atom  cannot  Integrate.         •     289 

there  must  be  matter  in  a  diffused  state  that  can  be 
integrated,  while  there  is  atomic  matter  that  is  not 
diffused,  and  therefore  cannot  be  integrated  in  evo- 
lution. Considering,  therefore,  the  atom  as  the  basal 
matter  in  inorganic  nature,  we  must  logically  con- 
clude that  correlative  evolution  of  diffused  matter 
does  not  apply  to  the  whole  of  inorganic  nature,  as 
it  does  apply  to  the  undiffused,  inorganic  atom.  So, 
that,  if  the  theory  of  atomic  matter  be  affirmed,  the 
theory  of  universal  evolution  of  all  matter,  and 
especially  the  undiffused  matter  of  an  atom,  must  be 
denied.  Thus  we  see  how  pre-existing  Power,  pre- 
existing matter,  pre-existing  in  a  diffused  state,  can 
integrate  as  motion  is  dissipated.  There  are  three 
states  of  matter — the  hypothetical  atom,  the  group 
of  atoms  called  the  crystalloid,  and  the  group  of 
groups  called  the  colloid.  An  atom  may  be  moved 
by  external  force,  but  it  cannot  absorb  any  force  or 
motion  that  will  disintegrate  it  as  an  atom.  A  group 
of  atoms,  or  a  group  of  groups,  may  absorb  force  or 
motion,  and  be  disintegrated  as  a  group.  But  once 
an  atom  always  an  atom.  An  atom  is  not  diffused 
matter ;  an  atom  is  not  integrated,  because  it  never 
was  disintegrated.  It  never  was  diffused,  but  was 
always  indivisible.  What  is  called  correlation  has 
been  seen  to  be  correlative  movement,  under  the 
name  of  force,  of  the  same  Will ;  but  now  we  come 
to  consider  the  correlative  movement,  not  of  one 
Will,  but  of  two. 

2.     Correlation  of  conscious  forces.     Wills,  conscious 
and  personal  in  man  as  distinguished  from  wills  un- 
conscious and  impersonal  in  brute  animals,  correlate 
19 


290        The  Philosophy  op  the  Supernatural. 

exactly  as  the  unconscious,  unintelligent  forces  cor- 
relate. 

Direct  correlation  of  wills  is  when  two  wills  agree, 
and  increase  or  decrease  together ;  as,  when  it  is  the 
will  of  man  not  to  have  its  own  will,  but  savs  "  not 
my  will,  but  thine  O  Lord,  be  done." 

The  promise  of  the  Lord  to  St.  Paul  was:  "My 
grace  is  sufficient  for  thee  :  for  my  strength  is  made 
perfect  in  weakness.  Most  gladly,  therefore,  will  I 
glory  in  my  infirmities,  that  the  power  of  Christ  may 
rest  upon  me.  Therefore,  I  take  pleasure  in  infirmi- 
ties, in  necessities,  in  persecutions,  in  distresses  for 
Christ's  sake  ;  for  when  I  am  weak,  then  am  I  strong." 
(2  Cor.,  xii.,  9,  10.)  God  says,  "  My  thoughts  are  not 
your  thoughts,  neither  are  your  ways  my  ways,  said 
the  Lord.  For  as  the  heavens  are  higher  than  the 
earth,  so  are  my  ways  higher  than  your  ways,  and 
my  thoughts  than  your  thoughts."  (Isa.  lv.,  8-9.) 
"  And  I  will  come  near  to  judgment;  and  I  will  be  a 
swift  witness  against  the  sorcerers,  and  against  the 
adulterers,  and  against  false  swearers,  and  against 
those  that  oppress  the  hireling  in  his  wages,  the 
widow  and  the  fatherless,  and  that  turn  aside  the 
stranger  from  his  right,  and  fear  not  me,  saith  the 
Lord  of  Hosts.  For  I  am  the  Lord,  I  change  not : 
therefore,  ye  sons  of  Jacob  are  not  consumed.  Even 
from  the  days  of  your  fathers,  ye  have  gone  away 
from  mine  ordinances  and  have  not  kept  them. 
Return  unto  me,  and  I  will  return  unto  you,  saith 
the  Lord  of  Hosts."     (Mai.  iii.,  5-7.) 

St.  Paul  illustrates  the  direct  correlation  of  the 
two   wills  that  agree,   when   he  says,   "  Ye  are  the 


Wills  Correlate.  291 


temple  of  the  living  God  ;  as  God  hath  said,  I  will 
dwell  in  them,  and  walk  in  them;  and  I  will  be  their 
God  and  they  shall  be  my  people."  (2  Cor.,  vi.,  16.) 
God  draws  nigh  to  us  as  we  draw  nigh  to  Him.  As 
we  give  Him  up  in  our  actions,  He  gives  us  up  to 
our  consequences.  As  our  day  with  Him,  so  is  our 
strength  ;  and  as  our  day  without  Him,  so  is  our 
weakness.  God  moves  on  one  uniform  line;  it  saves 
us  as  we  move  with  it ;  and  it  destroys  us  as  we  move 
against  it.  The  correlation  is  of  man's  making.  As 
man's  will  agrees  with  God's  Will,  there  is  a  maximum 
of  good  and  a  minimum  of  evil ;  and  as  man's  will 
disagrees  with  God's  Will,  there  is  a  minimum  of 
good  and  a  maximum  of  evil. 

Inverse  correlation  is  when,  as  one  will-power  max- 
imizes, the  will-power  of  the  other  minimizes ;  and 
the  reverse,  as  one  will-power  minimizes,  the  will- 
power of  the  other  maximizes.  This  inverse  correla- 
tion is  a  see-saw  of  will-powers,  like  the  two  ends  of 
a  beam,  one  end  going  up  as  the  other  goes  down. 
Universal  Will-Power  of  God  may  become  latent  or 
restrain  itself,  just  as  the  derived  will-power  of  man 
becomes  active.  As  the  manifestation  of  one  will  is, 
the  manifestation  of  the  other  is  not.  The  Superhu- 
man is  more,  as  the  human  is  less,  and  the  Superhu- 
man less  as  the  human  is  more;  just  as  active  force 
or  energy  changes  into  the  potential,  or  the  potential 
into  the  active. 

We  are  not  to  consider  how  there  came  to  be  two 
wills  ;  but  that  there  should  be  two  wills,  is  no  great- 
er mystery  than  that  there  should  be  one.  We  know, 
as  a  fact,  that  each  intelligent  individual,  whether  man 


292        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

or  beast,  has  a  will.  Whence  we  came  is  no  more 
incomprehensible  than  what  we  are.  One  will  of  a 
high  grade  implies  the  possibility,  indeed,  the  prob- 
ability, of  another  will  of  a  higher,  as  we  actually  see 
that  there  are  wills  of  a  lower  grade.  As  man  is  no 
permanent  summit  of  anything,  his  will  cannot  be  the 
summit  of  anything,  his  will  cannot  be  the  summit  of 
will. 

Supernatural  will-power  then,  in  some  way,  mani- 
fests from  itself  will-power  in  the  conscious  will  of 
man  and  will-power  in  the  unconscious  will  of  ani- 
mals below  man.  The  will-power  in  these  lower  ani- 
mals is  a  force,  not  so  low  in  grade  as  the  matter- 
power  in  unintelligent  things,  and  not  so  high  as  the 
mind-power  in  intelligent  persons.  Unconscious  will- 
power is  energetic  instinct.  The  correlation  we  are 
now  to  investigate  is  the  correlation  of  the  limited 
will-power  in  man  and  the  unlimited  will-power  of 
God.  In  this,  one  will-power  is  not  doing  two  differ- 
ent things,  as  between  two  forces  called  impersonal, 
but  two  will-powers,  one  unlimited  and  the  other  lim- 
ited, are  with  or  against  each  other  upon  the  same 
thing.  Whether  there  shall  be  much  of  heat  as  there 
is  less  of  electricity,  or  less  of  heat  as  there  is 
much  of  electricity,  is  all  in  the  choice  of  one  will  ; 
but  whether  there  shall  be  much  of  the  human  mo- 
tives in  conduct  as  there  is  less  of  the  superhuman,  or 
much  of  the  superhuman  motives  in  conduct  as  there 
is  less  of  the  human,  is  a  question  of  two  wills.  Is  not 
their  action  correlative  to  each  other? 

For  the  sake  of  a  convenient  antithesis,  we  here 
make  a  verbal  distinction  between  the  supernatural 


Human  and  Superhuman  Wills.  293 

and  the  superhuman.  The  supernatural  is  the  antithe- 
sis to  the  whole  of  the  natural.  The  superhuman  is  the 
special  supernatural  antithesis  to  human  nature. 

(a)  The  superhuman  and  the  individual  human 
Will.  Heretofore  we  have  considered  one  universal 
will  as  one  universal  power,  manifested  in  the  forces 
of  material  nature.  Now  we  come  to  consider  the 
correlative  manifestation  of  two  will-powers  in  the 
sphere  of  human  life.  The  underived  will  we  call 
underived  power,  the  derived  will  we  call  de- 
rived power  in  intelligent  nature,  conscious  in  man 
and  unconscious  in  brute  animals.  Power  delegated 
in  material  nature  we  call  force.  The  underived 
superhuman  will  as  power,  including  and  manifesting 
all  force,  correlates  with  the  manifestations  of  the 
derived  human  will  as  force.  The  manifestation  of 
the  superhuman  will,  whether  called  power  or  force, 
correlates  with  the  manifestations  of  the  human  will, 
whether  called  will  or  force. 

Will  is  in  all  animal  nature.  Has  animal  nature  a 
monopoly  of  will  ?  We  claim  to  have  shown  that  hu- 
man will  implies  a  superhuman  will.  Can  these  two 
wills  correlate?  Certain  it  is,  that  there  is  most  of 
superhuman  will  manifested  where  there  is  the  least 
of  any  other  manifested,  as  in  irrational,  organic  na- 
ture. As  there  is  much  of  the  superhuman  in  the 
motives  of  conduct,  there  is  less  of  the  human  ;  and 
as  there  is  more  of  the  human  in  the  motives  of  con- 
duct, there  is  less  of  the  superhuman.  The  correla- 
tion is  not  the  same  between  two  wills  that  it  is  be- 
tween two  forces.  The  superhuman  will  manifests 
the  two  forces,  and  then  correlates  them  ;  and  one  will- 
power does  both  the  manifestation  and  the  correla- 


2Q4       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

tion.  But  in  the  correlation  of  two  wills,  the  case  is 
different.  The  same  universal  power  that  specialized 
its  will  as  force,  and  that  set  off  the  human  will  to  act 
for  itself,  permits  that  human  will  somewhat  to  resist 
it,  as  the  strong  is  patient  with  the  resistance  of  the 
weak.  So,  within  limits,  there  is  the  general  fact,  that 
the  minimum  of  human  will  in  the  motives  of  conduct, 
is  the  maximum  of  superhuman  will  in  help  and  ap- 
probation. 

Personal,  conscious,  supernatural  power  manifests 
unconscious,  impersonal  forces,  and  then  interchanges 
or  correlates  them  according  to  methods  and  aims  of 
its  own.  But  this  supernatural  will-power,  ex  vicro 
motu,  gave  a  limited  power  to  a  limited  creature 
which,  in  itself  as  creator,  was  unlimited.  This  con- 
scious, supernatural  will  correlates  its  own  power  as 
force  in  all  unconscious  nature ;  for  there  is  no  con- 
scious will  in  unconscious  nature  with  which  to  cor- 
relate ;  but  it  correlates  as  personal  will,  not  as  imper- 
sonal force,  with  the  conscious  will  of  human  nature. 
That  power  which  is  blind  force  in  a  stone,  is  intelli- 
gent will  in  man.  That  is,  as  to  the  stone,  God's  will 
is  its  will ;  as  to  man,  God  has  given  man  his  own 
will. 

When  we  speak  of  the  correlation  of  two  forces  in 
matter,  we  are  really  speaking  of  one  Will  acting  in 
two  opposite  ways.  As  we  have  said,  in  speaking  of 
the  correlation  of  unconscious  forces,  there  is  not  one 
Will  in  the  integration  of  matter  and  another  Will  in 
the  dissipation  of  motion  ;  but  one  will  in  doing  one 
thing,  incidentally  does  another ;  just  as  a  person  in 
moving  to  one  point  is  moving  from  another.  As  the 
sun  goes  to  the  west  the  shadows  go  to  the  east.     So 


Personal  Force  Cor  relet,  tes  with  Personal  Force.  295 

in  describing  a  curve  line,  the  same  act  forms  two  op- 
posite figures  ;  one  concave  and  the  other  convex.  So, 
in  drawing  a  diagonal,  one  line  makes  a  hypothenuse 
common  to  two  adjacent  angles.  In  the  correlation  of 
two  Wills,  the  result  is  the  same.  A  superhuman 
Will  willing  to  bless  an  obedient  human  will,  cannot 
bless  a  disobedient  human  will.  Change  of  action 
always  changes  relations.  The  obedient  human  will 
puts  itself  in  accord  with  the  Superhuman  Will,  as 
by  its  disobedience,  it  puts  itself  in  discord  with  the 
Superhuman  Will. 

Personal  force  correlates  with  personal  force,  as 
the  correlation  of  the  human  with  the  Superhuman 
Will;  and  impersonal  forces,  so  called,  correlate  with 
impersonal  forces  and  things.  There  is  a  correspond- 
ence between  the  Power  and  its  methods:  intelligent 
method  implies  intelligent  Power:  personal  methods 
imply  personal  power.  The  supernatural  and  per- 
sonal Power,  we  claim  to  have  proved,  implies  super- 
natural, personal  methods.  Instead  of  the  psycho- 
logical term  Will,  or  the  metaphysical  term  Power, 
suppose  we  use  the  more  scientific  term  Force,  and 
say  that  the  Underived  Force  correlates  with  the 
derived  force.  Like  sensitive  balances,  their  equilib- 
rium is  easily  disturbed;  or  like  the  balanced  beam, 
one  end  goes  up  as  the  other  goes  down.  Long  lines 
of  history  show  the  alternate  prevalence  of  one  or 
the  other  of  these  two  will-forces.  Their  correlation 
is  as  certain  as  the  correlation  of  matter  and  motion 
or  of  any  two  forces,  by  whatever  name  known. 
Sometimes  this  Superhuman  Will  so  hedges  the 
human  will  with  difficulties,  as  to  seem  to  coerce  it 
unconsciously  into  conformity,  leading  men  and  na- 


296       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

tions  by  ways  they  know  not.  The  human  will  is, 
not  consulted  as  to  whether,  as  an  inhabitant  of  this 
sphere,  it  will  be  at  the  nadir  or  at  the  zenith  of  the 
terestrial  orbit ;  but  it  is  consciously  free  all  the  time. 
The  fish  in  the  vase  are  free,  but  are  not  consulted 
when  they  .are  moved  from  one  part  of  a  room  to 
another.  The  correlation  of  the  manifestations  of 
the  human  will  with  the  manifestations  of  the  Super- 
human Will,  each  will  being  automatic,  is  the  one 
moral  and  spiritual  problem  of  human  life  and  des- 
tiny. Religious  ethics  are  the  basis  ot  civilization. 
As  related,  religion  is  supernatural  ethics,  and  ethics 
is  natural  religion.  Ethics  is  the  obedience  of  the 
human  will  to  the  superhuman  Will ;  religion  is  the 
worship  of  the  human  soul  of  the  Superhuman 
Being.  By  the  correlation  of  the  individual  human 
Will,  and  the  Superhuman  Will,  we  mean  that  certain 
consequences  invariably  correspond  to  certain  agree- 
ment or  disagreement  of  these  two  Wills.  Wills 
themselves,  of  course,  are  not  exchangeable  but  they 
act  interchangeably.  The  human  and  the  superhu- 
man Wills  may  be  said  to  be  correlated  as  they  affect 
conduct.  The  conscious  conformity  or  correlation 
of  the  human  will  to  the  Superhuman  Will,  is  ex- 
pressed in  the  submissive  words  of  the  Virgin  Mary 
to  the  Angel,  "  be  it  unto  me  according  to  thy  word  ;" 
as  it  was  afterwards  to  those  of  her  divine  Son  in 
the  Garden,  "  not  as  I  will  but  as  thou  wilt."  As  by 
generation  we  are  human,  so  by  regeneration  we 
become  Superhuman — through  ways  not  our  own, 
we  become  partakers  of  the  divine  nature.  In  con- 
duct we  become  supernatural.  The  human,  when  it 
reaches  up  to  the  superhuman,  is  so  emptied  of  its 


Force  is  Will.  297 


own  will,  as  to  be  filled  with  the  Superhuman  Will. 
As  the  one  is  less,  the  other  is  more.  "  I  seek  not  my 
own  will,  but  the  will  of  my  father  which  hath  sent 
me."  (John  v.,  30.)  "  If  I  do  this  thing  willingly,  1 
have  a  reward  ;  but,  if  against  my  will,  a  dispensa- 
tion of  the  gospel  is  committed  unto  me."  (1  Cor., 
ix.,  17.)  Will  is  Power  (see  first  lecture)  and  Power  is 
force,  and  force  correlates  with  force ;  as  force  is 
Power  and  Power  is  Will,  so  Will  correlates  with 
Will — that  is,  Superhuman  Will,  conscious  and  per- 
sonal, correlates  with  human  will,  conscious  and  per- 
sonal. We  have  already  said  that,  as  force  is  Will, 
the  correlation  of  force  with  force  is  only  the  corre- 
lative manifestation  of  the  universal  Will-Power  with 
its  own  special  manifestations  of  Will-Power,  called 
gravitation,  heat,  electricity,  chemical  affinity,  and  so 
on.  Indeed,  these  special  manifestations  are  special 
modes  of  itself;  and,  yet,  the  mode  is  not  the  Power 
as  such,  any  more  than  the  wood  of  a  throne  or  of  a 
ship  is  the  tree  whence  the  wood  came. 

We  expect  to  show  that,  as  Supernatural,  personal 
Will-Power  has  manifested  what  are  called  imper- 
sonal, natural  forces,  and  that  these  impersonal,  nat- 
ural forces  are  correlated,  so  the  manifestations  of 
the  underived  Will  of  God  correlates  with  the  mani- 
festations of  the  derived  will  of  man.  The  same  law 
of  correlative  exchange  which  God  has  established 
between  one  force  of  his  Will  and  another  force  of 
his  Will  as  force,  he  has  established  between  his  Will 
as  Power  and  man's  will  as  Force. 

Universal  Will-Power,  like  the  special  forces  it 
manifests,  may  be  active  or  inactive.  That  is,  when 
the  Superhuman  Will-force  of  an  infinite  Person  is 


298        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

active,  the  human  will-force  of  a  finite  person  may 
be  inactive  or  concurrent ;  and  the  reverse,  when  the 
human  will-force  of  a  finite  person  is  active  the 
Superhuman  Will-force  of  an  infinite  Person  may  be 
forbearingly  inactive  or  concurrent.  Or,  as  a  direct 
correlation  at  times  they  both  may  be  active  or  inact- 
ive together.  We  see  that  a  force  is  active  in  one 
object,  and  inactive  in  some  other  object.  As  Grove 
said,  one  object  cannot  be  heated  without  another 
being  cooled  ;  one  body  cannot  be  positively  electri- 
fied without  some  other  body  being  negatively  elec- 
trified. So,  the  will-power  of  God  is  less  in  our  lives, 
as  our  own  will-power  is  more,  and  the  reverse. 
This  is  evident  in  all  Scripture,  and  in  all  experience 
and  observation.  These  two  wills  are  automatic.  In 
the  correlation  of  the  manifestation  of  the  supernat- 
ural, personal  Will,  with  the  manifestation  of  the 
impersonal  forces,  the  one  supernatural  Will,  like  the 
sun,  is  the  Power,  and  many  natural  forces,  like  the 
rays,  are  the  manifestations.  But  in  the  correlation 
of  Superhuman  Will  with  human  will,  the  two  wills 
act  ex  mero  motu.  The  Superhuman  Will  says  to  the 
human  will  "  come  unto  Me  that  ye  may  have  life." 
The  human  will  responds  to  the  Superhuman  Will, 
"  I  will  not."  We  contend  that  the  human  and  the 
Superhuman  are  correlatives  both  in  terms  and  in 
facts ;  and  that  if  material  force  can  be  correlated  so 
can  mind-force ;  and  that  as  force  is  power,  and 
power  is  will,  the  human  and  the  Superhuman  Will 
may  be  correlated  like  any  other  forces  of  universal 
Power.  Syllogistically,  we  may  say,  that  all  forces 
may  be  correlated ;  all  will  is  force ;  therefore,  all 
will  may  be  correlated.      The  human   will  and  the 


Civilization  is  Superhuman.  299 

Superhuman  Will  either  agree  or  disagree;  in  other 
words,  are  correlative. 

(b)  The  superhuman  and  the  collective  human  will. 
If  all  human  beings  governed  their  lives  by  the  direc- 
tion of  Superhuman  Will,  they  would  progress  to  a 
Superhuman  experience,  which,  if  less  than  supernat 
ural,  would  be  more  than  natural.  From  the  begin- 
ning of  history,  we  see  that,  as  the  motives  of  life 
become  less  superhuman,  they  of  course  become  more 
human.  As  men  relied  upon  their  own  wisdom,  they 
sought  less  the  wisdom  of  God.  "  By  me  Kings  reign 
and  princes  decree  justice.  By  me  princes  rule,  and 
nobles,  even  all  the  judges  of  the  earth.  I  love  them 
that  love  me  ;  and  those  that  seek  me  early  shall  find 
me."  (Prov.  viii.,  15.)  Civilization  is  supernatural  so 
far  as  Supernatural  Will  controls  human  affairs,  and  is 
the  motive  of  human  conduct.  When  the  Supernat- 
ural Will  has  its  way  with  persons  as  it  has  with 
thinsfs,  the  correlation  of  the  human  will  with  the  Su- 
perhuman  Will  is  complete,  and  all  is  peace,  order  and 
progress.  But  when  the  human  will  is  filled  with  its 
own  ways,  all  is  war,  disorder  and  destruction.  This 
method  of  correlation  is  illustrated  in  the  history  of 
anv  long  era  of  civilization. 

Civilization  is  the  direct  correlation  of  the  two 
Wills — the  human  and  the  superhuman.  Events  are 
evolutions  out  of  the  domination  of  one  or  of  the  oth- 
er will,  as  the  case  may  be.  Under  the  Superhuman 
Will  highest  progress  is  evolved  ;  under  the  human 
will  lowest  regress  is  evolved.  Religious  superstitions 
are  groping  in  the  direction  of  the  Superhuman  ;  but 
superstitions  are  only  human  misinterpretations  of  the 
superhuman.     Unintelligent   nature    never    mistakes 


300       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

the  supernatural,  and  never  makes  false  steps  to  be 
retraced,  as  man  does.  Civilization  is  a  fact  and  must 
have  a  Factor.  If  civilization  is  a  natural  fact  then, 
as  the  Factor  must  be  above  and  before  its  fact,  so 
this,  as  every  natural  fact,  must  have  a  supernatural 
Factor.  The  highest  civilization  is  men  and  society 
at  their  best  ;  and  the  human  is  at  its  best  when  it  is 
in  accord  with  the  superhuman — that  is,  when  the 
derived  will  accepts  its  law  from  the  underived  Will. 
There  can  be  no  discord  in  true  civilization.  Human 
progress  is  a  segment  of  some  better  whole — an  echo 
of  the  harmony  of  the  universe.  Civilization  is  said 
to  be  evolved  because  circumstances  render  unstable 
its  primitive  condition,  and  instability  is  the  occasion 
of  all  evolutionary  and  progressive  changes.  All  so- 
cial elements  are  broken  up ;  social  ideas  change. 
New  foreign  relations  change  old  domestic  conditions. 
New  opportunities  change  new  enterprises.  Revolu- 
tions readjust  classes,  interests  and  power.  When,  by 
experience,  revelation,  or  the  condition  of  environ- 
ment, the  human  Will  correlates  with  or  knows  and 
obeys  the  Superhuman  Will,  then  is  the  lifting  of  the 
human  towards  the  Superhuman,  as  trees  grow  to- 
wards the  sunlight.  Nations  have  gone  up  or  down 
with  their  creeds  and  their  worships.  There  is  cre- 
ative method  of  supernatural  Will  and  intelligence  in 
all  inorganic,  and  in  the  creative  and  genetic  forms  of 
all  unconscious  organic  nature.  Here  the  manifesta- 
tions of  evolutions  are  many,  but  the  Power  is  one ; 
but  between  the  human  Will  as  force  and  the  Super- 
human Will  as  Power,  there  is  a  correlation  of  Wills 
as  Power  and  Force,  but  no  evolution,  as  Mr.  Spencer 
defines  it. 


Nations  and  Creeds.  301 


Civilization  is  not  an  organism,  but  an  organization 
in  unstable  equilibrium.     It  is   the  action  of  human 
will  midst  superhuman  methods.     The  race  is  an  ag- 
gregation, not  an  organism.     Mr.  Spencer  thinks  oth- 
erwise.    (See  F.  P.  §  in.)  What  is  organism?    Any 
living  unit,  not  an  aggregate,  is  an  organism  ?  A  grain 
of  wheat  is  an  organism,  because   it  is  a  living  and 
productive  unit  ;  but  a  bushel  of  grains  of  wheat  is 
not  an  organism,  because  as  a  bushel  of  wheat,  it  is 
not  a  living  unit,  but  only  an  aggregate  relation  of 
living  units.  Unity  only  can  have  organism  ;  plurality 
may  have  system,  but  not  organization.     There  is  a 
celestial  system,  but  not  a  celestial  organism.     There 
may  be  a  social  system,  but  there  cannot  possibly  be 
a  social   organism.     Organisms  as  individuals    may 
descend    from    individual    organisms;     and     organ- 
isms   may  be  related    to    organism ;    but    the    rela- 
tion  of   organisms    cannot,   because  of  the   relation, 
be  itself  an  organism.     Some  of  the  gravest  errors  in 
social  science  result  from'  the  confounding   relation 
with  organism.     Society,  as  its  name  imports,  is  the 
companionship  or  unit}' of  harmonious  will.  The  form 
of  companionship  is  purely  constitutional,  and  com- 
panionship itself  is  natural.     In  some  associations  it 
is  enforced,  as  in  monarchies;  in  others  it   is    called 
free,  as  in  democracies ;    in  others,  it  is  fraternal,  as 
in  perfect  Christianity. 

Hasty  utterances  of  modern  thought  restate  the 
medieval  error  of  confounding  nominalism  with  real- 
ism—that is,  giving  to  the  relations  of  things  the 
name  of  things  themselves.  As  society  is  only  a  name 
for  a  conventional  relation,  and  not  of  an  entity,  it 
cannot  be  said  except  by   metonomy,  of  putting  one 


302        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

thing  for  another,  to  be  either  organic  or  inorganic. 
But  science  deals  with  realities,  and  not  with  figures 
of  speech  ;  therefore  to  the  scientist  there  can  be  no 
social  organism  as  such — that  is,  social  science  is  not 
the  science  of  social  organism,  but  only  the  science 
of  the  changeable  relations  of  social  units.  Super- 
human power  controls  human  affairs,  if  human  affairs 
are  under  any  extrinsic  control  at  all.  •  Natural  Evo- 
lution is  a  process.  Supernatural  evolution,  if  any, 
is  a  method  of  control.  The  plan  of  nature  is  super- 
natural to  nature.  Intrinsic  power  evolves  ;  extrinsic 
power  controls.  Civilization,  like  everything  else,  is 
partly  created,  and  figuratively  genetic.  The  Person- 
al Will  of  supernatural  power  omnipresent  in  the  uni- 
verse, originates  the  personal  units  of  civilization  by 
indirect,  creative  act ;  and  then  leaves  much  to  the 
human  will  as  to  the  breadth  and  character  of  the  so- 
ciety that  follows.  Supernatural  Power  begins  hu- 
man life,  to  be  worked  out  and  watched  by  super- 
natural Power  under  natural  conditions. 

The  inverse  correlations,  illustrated  by  the  four 
adjacent  angles  of  the  following  Figure  No.  3,  show 
the  movements  of  civilization  for  over  three  thous- 
and years.  It  will  be  observed  that  the  correlation 
was  not  between  the  two  religions,  Polytheism  and 
Monotheism,  which  were  successive,  not  contempo- 
rary ;  but  between  either  of  these  with  the  civil  basis 
of  morality  on  the  one  side,  and  the  speculative  one 
of  philosophy  on  the  other.  Speaking  of  this  con- 
flict, Bagehot  says :  "  Those  kinds  of  morals  and  that 
kind  of  religion  which  tend  to  make  the  foremost 
and  most  effectual  character  are  sure  to  prevail,  all 
else  being  the  same ;  and  creeds  or  systems  that  con- 


Three  Thousand  Years  of  Civilization.    303 

duce  to  a  soft,  limp  mind  tend  to  perish,  except  some 
hard  extrinsic  force  keep  alive.  Thus  Epicureanism 
never  prospered  at  Rome  (though  Caesar,  Lucretius 
and  Horace  were  Epicureans),  but  Stoicism  did  ;  the 
stiff,  serious  character  of  the  great  prevailing  nation 
was  attracted  by  what  seemed  a  confirming  creed, 
and  deterred  by  what  looked  like  a  relaxing  creed. 
The  inspiriting  doctrines  fell  upon  the  ardent  char- 
acter, and  so  confirmed  its  energy.  Strong  beliefs 
win  strong  men,  and  make  them  stronger.  Such  is, 
no  doubt,  one  cause  why  Monotheism  tends  to  pre- 
vail over  Polytheism  ;  it  produces  a  higher,  steadier 
character,  calmed  and  concentrated  by  a  great  single 
object;  it  is  not  confused  by  competing  rites,  or  dis- 
tracted by  miscellaneous  deities.  Polytheism  is 
religion  in  commission,  and  it  is  weak  accordingly. 
But  it  will  be  said,  the  Jews,  who  were  Monotheists, 
were  conquered  by  the  Romans,  who  were  Polythe- 
ists.  Yes,  it  must  be  answered  ;  because  the  Romans 
had  other  gifts ;  they  had  a  capacity  for  politics,  a 
habit  of  discipline,  and  of  these  the  Jews  had  not  the 
least.  The  religious  'advantage  was  an  advantage, 
but  it  was  counter-weighed."  a 

On  the  following  page  will  be  found  a  figure  illust- 
rating the  correlative  movements  of  events  for  three 
thousand  years,  beginning  with  polytheism  at  and 
before  the  time  of  Moses,  fifteen  hundred  years  before 
Christ,  and  coming  on  down  to  the  fifteenth  century 
after  Christ;  with  a  statement  of  general  principles, and 
results  at  either  side ;  with  such  deductions  under- 
neath as  are  explanatory  of  the  conclusions  reached. 

(a)     Physics  and  Politics,  767. 


304       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

Fig.  3. 
Ancestral  Worship. 


Mythology. 


Maximum  of  Religion.  "1 
Maximum  of  Morality.  \ 
Minimum  of  State  Power.  J 


The  State  displaces  Polytheism 
and  disunites  civil  and  relig- 
ious la  «  s 


The  basis  of  morality  and  law 
changes  from  the  will  of  the 
gods  to  the  collective  will  of 
men,  as  a  State. 


Minimum  of  Religion. 
Maximum  of  State  Power. 
Maximum  of  Immorality. 


Ten  Persecutions. 


The  basis  of  morality  and  law 
changes  from  the  will  of  the 
State  to  the  will  of  the  one 
God. 


The  Dark  Ages. 


Europe  Christianized. 


Outof  173  Ld.  Chancellors,  123 
have  been  Bishops. 


Civil  and  Religious  law  united 
in  Canon  Law. 


Minimum  of  State  Power 

in  Morality. 
Maximum  of  Religion. 
Maximum  of  Morality. 


f  Maximum  of  Religion. 
■j  Maximum  of  Morality. 
I  Minimum  of  Philosophy. 


Philosophy  displaces  Poly- 
theism. 


1.  Personal  basis  for  morality. 

—Socrates. 

2.  Impersonal  nature  basis. 

— Zeno. 


f  Minimum  of  Religion. 
■j  Maximum  of  Philosophy. 
[  Maximum  of  Immorality. 


School  of  Philosophy  closed  at 
Athens,  A.  I).  520. 


Monotheism  displaces  Philoso- 
phy- 


The  Schoolmen  change  Philos- 
ophy into  Theology. 


Supernatural  basis  for  Moral- 
ity- 


f  Minimum  of  Philosophy  as 

such. 
I  Maximum  of  Religion. 
J  Maximum  of  Morality. 


Judaism. 
Christianity. 


Force  is  Will.  305 


From  the  foregoing  figure,  we  observe,  first,  that 
when  Polytheism  is  at  its  maximum,  the  State  is  at 
its  minimum  ;  and  that  as  the  State  maximizes,  Poly- 
theism correlatively  minimizes,  and  so  does  morality. 
Second,  that  when  Polytheism  is  at  its  maximum, 
Philosophy  is  at  its  minimum  ;  and  that  as  Polytheism 
minimizes,  Philosophy  correlatively  maximizes,  and 
so  does  immorality.  Third,  that,  with  the  State  at 
its  maximum  and  Philosophy  at  its  maximum  and 
Polytheism  at  its  minimum,  there  is  a  reverse  move- 
ment ;  and  that  while  the  State  is  at  its  maximum 
Monotheism  is  at  its  minimum  ;  the  State  minimizes 
while  Monotheism  maximizes,  and  so  does  morality. 
Fourth,  that  while  Philosophy  is  at  its  maximum, 
Monotheism  is  at  its  minimum  ;  and  that  as  Philoso- 
phy minimizes,  Monotheism  maximizes,  and  so  does 
morality. 

Omnific  forces  all  things  fill; 
All  will  is  force ;  all  force  is  will. 
No  will  or  force  was  first  in  man ; 
Another  was  whence  his  began. 


20 


LECTURE  VII. 


METHOD    OF    PERSISTENCE. 

Mr.  Spencer  says  (F.  P.  §  59)  "the  persistence  of 
force  is  an  ultimate  truth  of  which  no  inductive 
proof  is  possible  ;"  yet  as  (in  §  58)  he  says,  "  the  quan- 
tity of  force  remains  always  the  same,"  it  must  of 
course  persist.  To  be  is  to  continue.  It  is  the  order 
to  "gather  up  the  fragments  that  remain,  that  noth- 
ing be  lost.  If  Power  manifests  all  things,  and  all 
things  go  back  into  the  manifesting  Power ;  then 
Power  persists  producing,  recalling,  and  reproducing 
forms  of  itself.  This  is  quite  near  the  Buddhistic 
doctrine  of  emanation  and  reabsorption,  if  it  is  not 
the  doctrine  itself.  But  we  are  not  manifestations  of 
impersonal,  but  of  personal  Power.  If  human  per- 
sonality disappears,  it  reappears  or  expands  into 
superhuman  personality ;  illustrating  the  doctrine, 
that  "  we  go  on  to  perfection,"  even  "  partaking  of  the 
divine  nature." 

The  persistence  of  force — unsconscious  force  — 
is  one  of  the  confident  assumptions  of  science.  Ac- 
cording to  the  definition  of  force,  the  mind  or  soul  is  a 
force,  as  we  shall  see.  Will  the  soul-force  persist  as 
such? 


Natitre  Ever  Gains.  ;o 


3^/ 


Another  law,  universally  and  invariably  true,  is, 
that  what  is  called  death  of  each,  is  a  gain  of  the  suc- 
ceeding whole.  All  other  things  gain  by  dying  ;  why 
should  not  man  ?  The  soul  is  self-created,  or  it  is 
created  by  another.  If  self-created,  it  is  a  power  to 
itself  forever.  If  it  is  created  by  another,  then  that 
other  can  take  care  of  it  in  the  future,  as  it  has  in  the 
past.  So,  whether  we  exist  of  ourselves,  or  by  the 
will  of  another,  there  is  within  and  behind  us  an  im- 
mortalizing power,  looking,  to  say  the  least,  in  the 
direction  of  immortality,  and  showing  its  possibility. 

But  is  there  a  probability  of  it?  When  the  body 
dies,  we  see  no  soul  depart,  nor  has  one  ever  come 
back  to  give  evidence  of  its  disembodied  existence. 

But  in  this,  as  in  everything  else,  the  past  answers 
for  the  future.  Though  no  one  can  have  a  present 
experience,  in  the  body,  of  a  future  state  out  of  the 
body,  yet  the  reasoning  from  present  physical  phe- 
nomena to  future  physical  phenomena  is  neither  dif- 
ferent nor  more  certain  than  that  from  the  present 
existence  of  the  soul  to  the  continued  future  existence 
of  the  soul.  The  rising  of  the  life-bearing  sun  to- 
morrow cannot,  in  the  nature  of  things,  be  a  matter 
of  observation  to-day.  In  the  omnipresence  and  om- 
nipotence of  law,  by  which  both  matter  and  mind  con- 
tinue to  progress,  we  have  as  much  certainty  of  the 
continuance  of  the  individual  immortality  of  the  soul, 
as  we  have  of  anything  in  the  future. 

But,  as  we  have  said,  we  cannot  possibly  answer 
experimentally  now  a  question  whose  solution  must 
be  entirely  in  the  future.  Do  we  not  live  now  under 
a  law  of  persistence,  by  which  it  is  seen  that  we  must 


o 


08       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 


live  hereafter  ?  We  exist  now,  and  why  should  we  not 
continue  to  exist?  We  expect  to  exist  to-morrow, 
and  why  should  we  not  expect  to  exist  one  hundred 
or  a  million  of  years  hence?  In  the  life  of  the  race, 
we  have  not  only  an  expectation  and  a  start  in  exist- 
ence, prophetic  of  its  continuance,  but  in  our  present 
lives,  as  conscious  individuals,  we  have  already  en- 
tered upon  immortality.  We  are  in  the  grasp  of  the 
law  of  persistence,  and  those  who  deny  immortality, 
must  prove  conclusively  that  the  law  has  been  re- 
pealed, and  the  grasp  released.  In  short,  the  doctrine 
of  immortality  cannot  be  disproved. 

According  to  materialism  the  individual  has  no  im- 
mortality in  himself.  Out  of  himself  his  race  or  type 
only  persists. a  But  so  far  as  science  can  establish  a 
principle  of  continuity  or  persistence  of  beings  in  time, 
it  helps  religion  to  a  line  of  reasoning,  which  points 
to  their  persistence  in  eternity.  '  We  are  conscious 
beings,  and  therefore  shall  be.'  Life  once  begun  must  be 
supposed  to  continue,  not  only  in  this  world,  but  also 
in  the  next,  unless  it  be  proved  to  have  ceased.  Some 
say  that  this  proof  is  made  when  the  material  body 
has  no  longer  life  in  it.  But  the  separation  of  the 
soul  from  the  body  cannot  be  a  cessation  of  the  exist- 
ence of  the  soul,  for  this  separation  partially  takes 
place  every  second,  and  yet  we  live.  At  no  two  mo- 
ments do  we  have  the  same  bodies,  though  ever  the 
same  souls.  As  our  entire  bodies  are  new  every 
seven  years,  as  it  is  said,  while  our  life  and  conscious- 
ness are  one  and  the  same,  it  is  evident  that  we  do  not 

(a)     "So  careful  of  the  type  she  seems, 

So  careless  of  the  single  life." —  Tennyson. 


Conscious  Force  Persists.  309 

give  up  our  consciousness  when  we  give  up  our  bod- 
ies, in  what  we  call  life,  aud  why  should  we  be  held 
to  give  it  up  when  we  give  up  our  bodies  in  what  we 
call  death  ? 

We  have  said  that  whatever  moves  matter  is  force. 
We  also  say  that  mind  moves  matter;  therefore,  mind 
is  force.  Again  they  say,  all  force  is  imperishable ; 
all  mind  is  force ;  therefore  all  mind  is  imperishable. 
This  proves  that  mind,  as  force,  is  imperishable. 
This  much  is  settled.  But,  it  is  asked,  as  the  horse 
has  mind,  why  is  not  the  mind-force  of  the  horse  im 
perishable?  This  raises  the  question  as  to  the  form 
or  mode  in  which  force  is  imperishable.  Mind-force 
is  both  conscious  and  personal  in  man,  and  uncon- 
scious and  impersonal  in  brute  animals. 

1.  Conscious,  personal  mind-force  persists.  As  said 
before,  each  one  is  conscious,  that  his  mind  is  his  own, 
and  continuous.  Each  one  has  the  same  reason  to 
believe  in  the  individuality  and  continuous  person- 
ality of  his  own  mind,  that  he  has  to  believe  in  its 
existence.  And  we  may  as  well  expect  the  mind 
itself  to  perish,  as  to  expect  its  individuality,  con- 
sciousness, and  personal  continuance  to  perish.  We 
know  that  we  know  ;  in  other  words,  we  are  con- 
scious, and  therefore  immortal.  The  exercises  of  the 
mind  arise  and  vanish,  and  are  each  separate  and  dis- 
tinct from  others  in  their  appearance ;  but  the  same 
mind  is  in  and  through  them  all,  and  holds  them  all 
in  its  one  consciousness.  The  thought  which  was 
yesterday  or  last  year  in  consciousness,  and  the  con- 
scious thought  of  to-day  are  both  recognized  as  being 
in    the  same  self-consciousness.     The  self-conscious- 


3 


io       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 


ness  has  not  changed,  while  the  exercises  have  been 
coming  and  departing.  The  mind  thus  remains  in  its 
own  identity  yesterday  and  onward  into  the  future, 
perpetuating  the  same  mind.  Through  all  develop- 
ment of  its  faculties,  in  all  states,  the  mind  itself 
neither  comes  nor  goes,  but  retains  its  self  sameness 
through  all  changes.  Its  phenomenal  experience 
varies  in  time,  but  itself  perdures  through  all  time." 
(Hickok,  Science    of  the  mind   from    Consciousness, 

Chap.  I,  p.  3-) 

"  Consciousness  has  been  very  differently  appre- 
hended by  different  writers,  and  certainly  not  seldom 
misapprehended.  Some  have  considered  it  as  scarce- 
ly to  be  distinguished  from  personal  identity  ;  others 
as  a  separate  faculty  for  knowing  the  action  of  all 
other  mental  powers  ;  and  others  again  as  the  com- 
plement and  connection  of  all  mental  exercises,  inas- 
much as  they  are  all  held  in  one  consciousness.  Con- 
sciousness is  doubtless  ever  one  in  the  same  person, 
otherwise  some  actions  would  be  in  one  conscious- 
ness, and  some  in  another,  and  man's  life  could  never 
be  brought  into  one  experience.  But  this  does  by  no 
means  confound  consciousness  in  personal  identity, 
for  identity  continues  in  and  through  a  great  number 
of  states  of  consciousness."     (Ibid.  88.) 

Consciousness  persists  because,  first,  it  is  intelligent 
Power,  and  Power  is  immaterial,  uncompounded, 
and,  therefore,  indissoluble  ;  and  second,  because  it  is 
at  the  summit  of  being,  and  survives  as  the  fittest. 
Consciousness  is  either  inherent  in  matter,  or  it  is  an 
independent  Power.  If  it  inheres  in  matter,  it  inheres 
in  each  and  every  atom,  or  in  a  combination  of  atoms. 
If  it  inheres  in  a  combination  of  atoms,  then  it  must 


The  Soul  is  Indiscerptible.  3 1 1 

inhere  in  each  atom  ;  for,  as  nothing-  can  communicate 
what  it  has  not,  each  atom  must  have  inherently  in 
itself  the  consciousness  which  it  communicates  to  a 
combinations  of  atoms.  As  consciousness  is  person- 
ality, if  each  atom  is  conscious,  each  man  is  not  one 
person,  but  as  many  persons  as  there  are  atoms  in  his 
bod}7.  But  as  our  bodies  are  no  two  seconds  the  same, 
if  each  atom  is  conscious,  and,  therefore,  a  person,  we 
are  not  only  a  congress,  but  an  endless  procession  of 
persons,  which  is  inconceivable.  The  nature  of  every 
cause  must  decide  its  effects ;  but,  as  we  cannot  con- 
ceive of  anything  being  and  not  being  at  the  same 
moment,  so  the  nature  of  unconsciousness  cannot  in- 
clude consciousness;  and  unconsciousness  cannot, 
therefore,  be  the  cause  of  consciousness  as  an  effect. 
If  consciousness  be  indivisible,  it  cannot  be  an  inhe- 
rent energy  in  divisible  matter. 

Consciousness  can  become  extinct  in  only  one  of 
three  ways:  first,  either  by  dissolution,  which  is  im- 
possible, as  consciousness  is  a  single,  not  a  compound 
substance,  and  cannot  be  dissolved  ;  or,  second,  by 
privation  of  a  part  of  its  essence  ;  but  as  consciousness 
has  no  parts,  it  can  be  deprived  of  none ;  or,  third,  by 
annihilation;  but  this  could  only  be  by  its  own  act, 
which  is  not  supposable,  or  by  the  external  act  of 
God,  whose  existence  materialists  deny. 

As  a  principle  of  unity,  the  soul  is  indiscerptible 
and  indestructible;  as  a  principle  of  motion,  it  is 
incapable  of  rest ;  as  a  principle  of  vital  force,  it  is 
incapable  of  annihilation ;  as  a  self-conscious  princi- 
ple, it  is  incapable  of  oblivion.3, 

(a)     Heard's  Tripartite  Nature  of  Man,  p.  3. 


J 


i  2        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 


The  immortality  of  the  soul  is  not  impossible  from 
any  connection  with  matter,  for  it  is  not  matter.  As 
nature,  it  is  said,  can  make  no  leaps,  unconscious 
matter  could  never  have  become  conscious  matter. 
That  matter  should  think  is  unthinkable.  The  body 
changes  constantly,  but  never  the  consciousness. 
Each  persists  or  not  by  its  own  laws.  Herbert 
Spencer  says  that  there  is  no  conceivable  kind  of 
consciousness  which  does  not  imply  continued  exist- 
ence as  its  datum. a  Nature  confines  some  life  in 
unconsciousness  below.  Supernature  enlarges  other 
life  in  consciousness  above. 

If  consciousness  or  the  soul  itself  be  an  effect,  then 
it  persists ;  for  all  effects  not  only  succeed,  but  sur- 
vive their  causes.  The  soul  or  mind  is  something, 
or  it  is  nothing.  If  it  be  nothing,  then  as  nothing  it 
cannot  be  destroyed.  If  it  cannot  be  destroyed,  then 
it  must  be  something,  for  destruction  implies  some- 
thing to  be  destroyed.  But  if  it  be  something,  it 
cannot  be  destroyed  ;  for  while  nature  changes  all 
things  that  are  changeable,  she  destroys  nothing  that 
she  values  as  anything.  The  soul  to  be  a  soul  must 
retain  its  individual  and  conscious  personality.  But 
in  any  view  we  may  take,  immorality  is  sure.  We 
see  the  proof  of  it  in  this,  among  other  considera- 
tions :  Consciousness  makes  a  person  and  distin- 
guishes man  in  the  scale  of  being,  whether  he  be  an 

(a)  First  Prin.,  chap.  VI..  sec.  62.  See  in  the  Popular  Science  Monthly 
for  July,  1878,  a  most  admirable  article,  by  R.  G.  Eccles,  Esq.,  on  the 
"  Radical  Fallacy  of  Materialism,"  wherein  he  says,  at  the  conclusion  of 
a  line  of  most  convincing  argument  :  "  If  we  declare  matter  and  energy 
to  be  eternal,  then  we  must  declare  the  same  of  consciousness."  p.  360. 


Nature  Changes  by  Advancing.  313 

original  type  or  a  derived  individual ;  whether  he  be 
the  fountain  or  the  issuing  stream.  If  man  derives 
this  being,  it  must  be  from  some  underived  conscious 
cause.  If  he  originates  his  own  consciousness,  he 
creates  it  as  a  God,  and  he  can  continuously  transmit 
it  as  a  God.  In  his  consciousness,  man  shows  that 
he  is  either  descended  by  creation  from  some  con- 
scious God,  or  that,  in  consciousness,  he  is  himself 
a  God  to  his  conscious  descendants.  Therefore, 
whether  he  begins  in  a  God  as  a  source  of  conscious 
being,  or  a  God  begins  in  him  as  a  source  of  con- 
scious being,  he  is  immortal,  for  nothing  divine  ever 
dies. 

Does  nature  change  by  receding  or  advancing? 
Does  she  ever  tear  down  anything  except  to  build 
up  its  elements  in  something  better?  When  she  de- 
composes vegetable  life,  is  it  not  to  build  up  animal 
life?  If  our  consciousness  be  destroyed,  must  it  not 
be  for  some  condition  above  consciousness?  What 
do  we  know  of  the  origin  of  life?  of  organization? 
of  the  connection  between  matter  and  mind  ?  What 
we  do  know  is  limited,  but  what  we  do  not  know  is 
unlimited.3 

Does  matter  mentalize  itself,  or  mind  materialize 
itself?  Evolutionists  have  never  answered  the  ques- 
tion whether  the  egg  preceded  and  was  adapted  to 
the  chicken,  or  the  chicken  to  the  egg;  whether  the 
male  was  made  before  and   for   the  female,   or  the 

(a)  See  Dr.  Montgomery's  "  Monera,  or  the  Problem  of  Life,"  Pop. 
Science  Monthly,  August,  1878  ;  Supplement  Pop.  S.  M.,  May,  1878, 
Virchow,  12,  73  ;  also,  July  number,  p.  334  ;  Tyndall,  Address,  Norwich, 
1868. 


J 


1 4       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 


female  before  and  for  the  male ;  whether  the  honey 
was  made  for  the  bee  or  the  bee  for  the  honey.  The 
Unknown  is  vast  indeed  !  Do  not  all  things  advance? 
If  advance  seems  to  be  in  accordance  with  a  law  of 
nature  in  the  past,  who  can  prove  that  it  has  been 
repealed  as  to  the  future. 

But,  it  is  asked,  if  nature  tears  down  the  vegeta- 
bles on  one  plane  to  build  up  the  animals  on  a  higher 
plane,  why  should  not  the  brute  develop  into  some- 
thing above  itself?  If  man  can  become  an  angel, 
why  not  the  brute  become  a  man?  If,  as  according 
to  the  analogy  of  nature,  conscious  man  is  to  be 
lifted  into  some  power  above  consciousness,  ought 
not  the  unconscious  brute  to  be  lifted  above  itself 
into  consciousness?  If,  as  asked,  development  is  to 
be  expected  in  men,  so  it  ought  to  be  expected  in 
brutes. 

While  we  can  look  below  us  and  see  that  no  brute 
ever  does  become  man,  we  cannot  look  above  us  in  the 
same  way  to  see  what  a  man  may  expect  to  become. 
Immortality  is  necessarily  to  be  expected  from  na- 
ture in  either  man  or  brutes,  or  both,  unless  she  can 
be  stupid  enough  to  stop  in  sight  of  what  would  glo- 
rify her  most.  If  she  can  produce  life  for  awhile  in 
man  and  brute,  why  not  forever?  Has  not  nature  as 
much  reason  to  go  on  as  she  had  to  begin  ?  And  since 
beginning,  has  nature  not  in  fact  steadily  advanced, 
and  held  every  gain  ?  As  to  thinking  animals,  no  in- 
telligence short  of  consciousness  is  considered  a  gain. 
At  least  we  have  no  knowledge  of  it.  Whatever 
mind  the  brutes  may  have,  so  far  as  we  now  know, 
seems  limited  to  their  anima]  wants.     It  is  directive, 


Nature  Preserves  its  Best  Things.        3 1 5 

not  reflective.  But  man  has  mind  for  far  more.  Brute 
mind  is  imperishable,  only  as  an  impersonal,  uncon- 
scious mode  of  force,  in  the  same  grade  of  force  it  is 
now  ;  but  lacking  consciousness,  it  is  perishable  as  in- 
dividual mind.  The  mind-force  of  man  must  persist 
in  its  consciousness  if  it  persists  at  all.  It  is  con- 
sciousness which  lifts  mind  from  a  mode  or  manifesta- 
tion of  force  into  force  itself.  Conscious  mind  is 
force. 

Nor  in  distinguishing  between  impersonal  individu- 
ality and  individual  personality,  do  we  make  a  distinc- 
tion without  a  difference  ?  Consciousness  is  the  grand 
difference  between  impersonal  individuality  and  indi- 
vidual personality,  and  is  a  new  order  of  existence. 
Nature  preserves  its  best  things,  and  these  only.  If 
it  preserves  not  consciousness,  what  else  would  it  pre- 
serve? 

When  brutes  die,  the  intelligent  but  unconscious 
force  that  was  individualized  in  them  for  a  time,  obeys 
the  law  of  all  unconscious,  unpersonalized  force,  and 
losing  whatever  individuality  it  may  have  exhibited 
when  it  has  performed  any  special  work,  is  correlated 
back  into  something  else,  or  reabsorbed ;  as,  after 
electricity  has  been  captured  and  made  to  fire  guns, 
ring  bells,  explode  mines,  and  carry  messages  across 
vast  oceans  and  broad  continents,  it  drops  its  tempo- 
rary mode  of  individuality,  and  lapsing  back  like  a 
wave  of  the  sea,  becomes  again  an  undistinguishable 
part  of  electricity  elsewhere,  or  is  correlated  into 
heat.  Individuality  was  no  part  of  its  nature,  but 
only  an  impersonal,  unconscious  temporary  manifes- 
tation of  it.     So  the  individualized  mind  of  the  brute, 


o 


1 6       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 


not  having  gained  consciousness,  or  enough  to  lift  it 
into  the  higher  order  of  personalized  force,  drops  its 
individuality  when  its  animal  work  is  done,  as  a  tree 
or  an  oyster  drops  its  individuality  ;  and  being  only 
unconscious  force,  is  conservated,  like  any  other  un- 
conscious force,  by  correlation  or  reabsorption.  But 
the  personality  of  man,  including  the  transient  indi- 
viduality common  to  the  brute,  and  also  a  conscious- 
ness which  is  peculiar  to  man,  is  a  vast  flight  upward  ; 
and  manifests,  if  it  does  not  originate,  as  before  said, 
a  new  order  of  force  in  which  individuality,  now 
lifted  into  personality,  persists.  Consciousness,  or 
life,  on  nature's  highest  terrace,  is  a  gain  to  be  con- 
servated, if  any  is  to  be  conservated.  To  individual- 
ity there  has  been  superadded,  in  conscious  intelli- 
gence, moral  power  and  spiritual  responsibility,  all 
that  is  meant  by  personality.  Nature  advances  as 
much  in  moving  from  unconsciousness  to  conscious- 
ness, as  she  does  when  the  animal  kingdom  rises 
above  the  vegetable  kingdom.  Is  there  a  greater  dif- 
ference between  these  kingdoms  than  there  is  between 
conscious  man  thinking  about  his  thought,  and  the 
unconscious  brute  thinking  only  about  his  mate  and 
his  food  ?  If  the  law  of  progress  be  admitted,  then 
immortality  begins  where  consciousness  begins,  and 
ends  where  it  ends.  Disembodied  life  is  not  new  in 
the  nature  of  things,  if  mind  preceded  matter.  Con- 
scious mind  is  either  a  mode  of  matter,  or  it  is  above 
matter.  If  above,  it  can  survive  in  the  future,  as  in 
the  past,  the  absence  of  that  which  is  beneath  it.  If 
mind  be  a  mode  of  matter,  it  must  be  a  supreme 
mode,  conscious,    individual,    and    personal  ;  and  as 


Personality  is  Human.  317 

such,  it  must  exist  forever,  because  no  matter  per- 
ishes. If,  in  other  words,  matter  becomes  a  person, 
then  as  personalized  matter  it  is  imperishable.  If 
matter  becomes  conscious,  then  it  must  exist  as  con- 
scious matter." 

As  said  before,  every  person  is  an  individual,  but 
every  individual  is  not  a  person.  We  cannot  tran- 
scend our  personality.  A  person  is  an  individual  that. 
is  conscious  of  his  individuality — a  thinker  conscious 
of  his  thought — one  who  knows  that  he  knows.  A 
stone  or  a  piece  of  metal  is  an  individual  mass  or 
lutnp  which  may  be  separated  into  parts,  each  of 
which  shall  continue  to  have  the  same  qualities  as  the 
whole.  That  which  cannot  be  parted  into  several 
things  of  the  same  nature  is  an  individual  whole  ; 
as,  for  instance,  a  seed,  a  plant  or  an  animal,  when  sep- 
arated into  parts,  loses  its  identity  or  individuality, 
which  is  not  retained  by  any  of  its  parts.  We  refuse 
personality  to  a  stone  or  a  metal,  because  these  things 
exist  for  others  and  not  for  themselves.  We  refuse 
it  also  to  a  mere  animal,  because,  though  it  may  have 
individuality,  it  is  not  conscious  of  its  individuality. 
We  ascribe  personality  to  man  because  that  which  he 
is,  he  is  for  himself,  and  has  consciousness  of  it.  Con- 
sciousness, or  the  ability  to  study  our  own  minds, 
pre-eminently  distinguishes  man  from  the  brute — the 
personalized  individual  from  the  non-personalized 
individual.  It  is  the  dividing  line  between  imperish- 
able personality  and  perishable  individuality.  Until 
personality  is  attained,  there  is  no  such  individuality 
as  needs  or  does  persist.  Though  consciousness  is 
not  in  itself  a  force,  yet.when  force  becomes  conscious, 


3 1 8        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

consciousness  persists  with  the  persistence  of  the  force 
that  manifests  it. 

It  is  true  that  the  individual  or  unconscious  animal 
part  dies,  but  not  the  conscious  or  personal  part. 
The  unconscious  die  and  not  the  conscious?  We 
can  conceive  of  no  consciousness  that  does  not  con- 
tinue. To  resolve  personal  consciousness  back  into 
impersonal  unconsciousness  is  not  to  correlate  or 
transform,  but  to  destroy  it,  and  nature  destroys 
nothing. 

Nature  destroys  the  individuality  of  the  brute  at 
its  death  ;  that  is  she  drops  it  but  seems  not  to  con- 
sider the  obliteration  of  any  individuality  short  of 
conscious  individuality,  rising  into  personality,  as  a 
destruction  or  loss.  We  repeat,  consciousness  is  at 
the  summit  of  all  things,  and  it  is  consciousness  that 
makes  individuality  a  type,  and  so  a  gain.  Person- 
ality is  equal  to  a  type,  but  if  personal  consciousness 
does  not  persist,  then  it  is  a  total  loss,  and  nature 
works  in  vain,  preserving  her  lower,,  impersonal 
types,  and  annihilating  her  highest  personal,  con- 
scious, individual  type.  Such  an  exhibition  of  power, 
such  vacillating  weakness  of  purpose,  and  such  per- 
mission of  loss,  if  not  wanton  destruction,  would 
proclaim  nature  to  be  an  idiot  and  a  suicide.  She 
may  convert  impersonal  and  unconscious  force,  and 
exalt  conscious  force,  but  not  destroy  it.  The  ele- 
ments of  everything  that  dies  can  be  and  are  used 
over  again,  such  as  the  carbon  and  other  elements  in 
the  animal  body ;  but  that  which  cannot  be  used 
over  again  does  not  die.  The  consciousness  of  one 
cannot  be  used  again  in  the  consciousness  of  another, 


Impersonal  Force  Persists  as  Impersonal.      319 

and  unless  each  man's  consciousness  persists  under 
all  changes,  then  consciousness,  which  is  the  most 
exalted  of  facts,  must  perish  altogether.  Does  nature 
in  anything  else  so  destroy  its  best  work?  It  is  in 
consciousness  that  man  is  in  the  likeness  of  God,  or 
whatever  is  supreme  above  him.  In  the  pyramid  of 
stars  surmounted  by  the  sun  all  serve  and  glorify  the 
one  at  the  top ;  as  in  the  universe,  consciousness 
looks  down  upon  all  unconscious  forms  below  it. 

Brutes  are  not  immortal,  because,  while  thev  have 
individuality  they  have  not  consciousness,  or  any- 
thing that  nature  cares  to  preserve,  except  their 
material  elements.  Having  no  conscious  personality, 
they  must  forever  remain  in  the  class  of  impersonal 
things,  and  be  correlated  or  transmitted  from  one 
impersonal  thing  to  another.  Below  personal  indi- 
viduality, no  individuality  persists. 

2.  Unconscious,  impersonal  mind-force  persists.  If  the 
mind  force  of  the  horse  is  conscious,  he  cannot  assert 
it.  Lower  animals,  as  the  horse,  the  dog,  the  ele- 
phant, the  beaver,  and  such  insects  as  the  bee,  have 
intelligence  and  memory,  but  we  have  no  knowledge 
that  they  are  conscious.  Those  who  affirm  their 
consciousness  must  prove  it.  We  are  severally  con- 
scious of  our  own  consciousness;  but  we  are  neither 
conscious  of  the  consciousness  of  another  man,  nor 
can  we  prove  the  consciousness  of  another  man  or 
of  an  animal.  Nature  has  not  yet  been  so  unmerciful 
to  the  horse  as  to  make  him  conscious  of  his  lot.  In- 
stinct is  not  consciousness.  We  are  conscious  that 
we  are  men  and  not  lower  animals,  but  we  have  no 
evidence  that  they   think  anything  about  it.      But 


320       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 


consciousness  or  no  consciousness,  settles  the  ques- 
tion of  the  brute  animal's  immortality.  The  differ- 
ence between  these  two  kinds  of  force  is  this,  as  said 
before.  The  man  thinks  and  he  thinks  about  his 
thought — he  knows  that  he  knows — he  is  conscious  of 
his  consciousness.  The  horse  thinks,  but  he  does  not, 
from  all  we  can  judge,  think  about  his  thought.  He 
may  know,  but  he  does  not  know  that  he  knows.  If 
he  was  conscious  of  his  strength,  he  would  kick  into 
eternity  the  brutal  wretches  who  inhumanly  mistreat 
him  ;  and  yet,  as  the  man  belongs  to  a  grade  of  im- 
mortal creatures,  he  is  to  be  imperishable  in  his  per- 
sonality and  the  poor  horse  imperishable  in  his 
impersonality.  As  men  are  to  be  men  in  eternity, 
the  horse  may  be  thankful  that  he  is  not  to  be  a  horse 
in  eternity.  If  the  elephant  was  conscious  of  his 
strength — if  the  lion  was  conscious  or  knew  how  to 
rend  his  iron  barriers,  how  terrible  would  be  his 
revenge.  If  all  animals  in  the  lower  plane  are  to 
serve  man  on  the  higher  plane,  consciousness  must 
be  denied  them.  Man  knows,  captures  and  bridles 
the  lightning,  because  it  does  not  know  how  to  resist. 
The  conscious  must  ever  be  master  of  the  uncon- 
scious. 

Conscious  mind-force  belongs  exclusively  to  man, 
making  him  a  person;  and  unconscious  mind-force 
belongs  equally  to  brutes ;  leaving  them  in  the  class 
of  thinking  but  unconscious  impersonal  tilings. 

We  have  seen  that  each  man  has  in  himself  two 
orders  of  force :  a  conscious,  personalizing,  regula- 
tive mind-force,  as  seen  in  his  will,  elevating  him  into 
a  person ;   and  an  unconscious,  impersonal,  regulated 


The  Impersonal  Persists  as  suck.  3  2 1 

matter-force,  as  seen  in  the  heat  of  his  material  body, 
which  he  has  in  common  with  mere  things.  The 
brute  has  the  same  two  orders  of  force,  but  its  mind- 
force  is  as  unconscious  as  its  matter-force.  Its  intel- 
ligence is  called  instinct,  and  only  directive,  not 
reflective,  and  is  limited,  unconscious,  impersonal, 
and  without  moral  responsibility. 

Impersonal  mind-force  persists  as  impersonal.  The 
mind-force  of  the  horse  as  of  the  man  is  imperishable 
for  exactly  what  it  is,  and  not  for  what  it  is  not.  It 
is  impersonal  mind-force  here,  and  will  be  imperish- 
able as  impersonal  mind-force  hereafter.  Man's  mind- 
force  is  personal  mind-force  here,  and  will  be  imper- 
ishable as  personal  mind-force  hereafter.  If  the 
mental  force  of  the  horse  is  unconscious  and  imper- 
sonal force  here,  why  should  it  be  a  conscious  and 
personal  force  hereafter  ?  If  a  horse  is  not  a  person 
here,  why  should  it  be  immortal  as  a  person  here- 
after ?  It  may  be  said  that  this  is  hard  on  the  horse  ; 
but  you  must  question  evolution  about  that,  if  you 
deny  a  God  ;  and  if  you  do  not  deny  a  God,  then  you 
should  not  question  the  God  which  you  admit.  Now 
comes  the  question,  why  should  the  impersonal  mind- 
force  of  the  horse  lose  its  individuality  and  be  reab- 
sorbed only  as  impersonal  force,  like  gravitation,  or 
electricity,  and  the  personal  mind-force  of  man  be 
preserved  as  personal,  individual  force  ? 

The  proposition  is  that  all  force  is  imperishable ; 
but  that  not  all  individualized  quantities  or  manifes- 
tations of  force  are  imperishable  in  individual  quan- 
tities. A  bottle  of  electricity  is  an  individualized 
quantity  of  electricity ;  the  electricity  as  a  force  will 
21 


J 


22        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 


be  preserved,  but  not  the  individualized  quantity  as 
an  individuality.  Strictly  speaking,  individuality 
cannot  be  predicated  of  anything  inorganic.  It  is 
only  by  way  ol  accommodation  that  we  can  individ- 
alize  portions  of  the  elements  or  speak  of  a  bottle  of 
electricity,  or  a  quart  of  oxygen  or  of  hydrogen,  or 
a  pound  of  gravitation,  or  a  yard  of  space,  or  a  hand- 
ful of  water.  We  may  enclose  space,  but  we  do  not 
individualize  it.  The  individual  is  the  indivisible. 
The  thoughts  of  all  animals  are  their  individual 
thoughts,  but  until  intelligence  is  developed  into  con- 
scious intelligence,  nature  does  not  preserve  its  indi- 
vidualities. This  is  proved  by  the  law  and  the  facts 
of  the  case. 

It  is  a  law  of  nature  to  hold  all  gains.  The  uncon- 
scious impersonal  intelligence  of  impersonal  animals 
was  a  great  gain,  and  Nature  holds  it  exactly  as  she 
gains  it — an  unconscious  impersonal,  intelligence. 
But  the  conscious,  personal  intelligence  of  man  was  a 
greater  gain,  and  Nature  holds  that  exactly  as  she 
gains  it — as  conscious,  personal,  individual  intelli- 
gence. The  unconscious  intelligence  of  the  horse 
and  the  conscious  intelligence  of  man  are  imperish- 
able, exactly  as  force.  That  which  is  once  a  force  is 
always  a  force.  That  which  is  once  a  conscious 
mind-force  is  always  a  conscious  mind-force.  A 
person  once  is  always  a  person.  If  consciousness 
has  been  added  to  mind-force  and  mind-force  is 
imperishable,  of  course  its  essential  consciousness 
is  as  imperishable  as  the  force  to  which  it  is 
essential,  is  imperishable.  As  the  outside  is  imper- 
ishable, so  must  be  the  inside ;  and  so,  if  the  mind  is 


Conscious  Individuality  Persists.  32 


o 


imperishable  as  a  force,  all  must  be  imperishable  that 
belongs  to  it  as  mind.  As  we  have  said  before,  nature 
holds  its  gains.  When  nature  rose  from  homogeneity 
to  heterogeneity — from  genera  to  species — from  spe- 
cies to  conscious  individuals  —  it  held  its  gains. 
Force  once  an  individualized  person,  is  individual- 
ized forever.  We  know  that  we  have  minds  only  by 
our  consciousness ;  but  we  are  as  conscious  of  our 
individuality  as  we  are  of  having  minds  at  all.  Each 
is  conscious  that  his  mind  is  his  own  and  not  that  of 
another.  If  our  consciousness  knows  our  mind  at 
all  it  knows  it  to  be  essentially  individual,  and  there- 
fore personal.  To  obliterate  the  individuality  of  the 
mind  of  man,  is  to  obliterate  the  mind  itself ;  a  hu- 
man mind  without  individuality  is  no  human  mind. 
But  the  mind  is  a  force — an  individualized  force — 
and,  as  a  force,  cannot  be  obliterated  ;  therefore  the 
individuality  of  the  human  mind  cannot  be  oblit- 
erated. 

Individuality  belongs  to  it  as  mind-force.  In  other 
words,  if  the  whole  force  is  imperishable  all  its  essen- 
tial characteristics,  such  as  consciousness,  are  imper- 
ishable. Unconscious  mind-force  in  time  will  be 
unconscious  mind-force  in  eternity.  Personality  re- 
tains its  individuality ;  impersonality  drops  it  at 
death.  To  impersonality,  individuality  is  accidental. 
To  personality,  individuality  is  essential.  It  is  con- 
scious force  that  individualizes  force,  and  it  is  con- 
scious individual  force  that  personalizes  force ;  and 
personal  force  once  is  personal  force  always. 

A  jar  of  electricity,  though  losing  whatever'  indi- 
viduality it  had  as  a  separate  quantity  of  electricity 


324       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 


in  the  jar,  does  not  lose,  on  being- discharged,  its  force 
as  electricity,  but  it  does  lose  its  individualization  of 
quantity.  It  is  reabsorbed  into  the  totality  of  elec- 
trical force.  All  personality  is  individual,  but  all  in- 
dividuality is  not  personal.  Impersonal  force  ever 
continues  to  exist  in  the  impersonal  totality  of  force, 
and  personal  force  exists  as  personal  individual  force, 
or  not  at  all.  If  it  is  reabsorbed  into  the  totality  of 
impersonal  force,  it  ceases  to  be  a  force  at  all ;  for  in- 
dividuality is  its  essence.  A  drop  of  the  ocean  is 
individual  so  long  as  it  is  a  drop,  but  it  loses  its  indi- 
viduality on  being  returned  to  the  ocean. 

When  nature  advanced  from  whatever  of  intelligence 
may  be  claimed  for  the  habits  of  plants,  the  lower  in- 
telligence of  lower  animals,  we  see  that  as  nature 
came  on  up  the  ascensions  of  being,  it  made  different 
kinds  of  mind-force,  in  the  habit  of  plants,  the  instinct 
of  some  animals  and  the  intelligence  of  others,  and 
the  consciousness  of  others.  Consciousness  is  at  the 
summit  of  intelligence.  This  consciousness  of  man 
makes  him  a  person,  and  the  want  of  this  conscious- 
ness leaves  the  horse  an  impersonal  creature. 

Place  before  your  imagination  a  battery  or  a  bottle 
of  electricity,  a  vessel  of  water,  and  a  living  horse. 
You  have  a  blind  force  in  electricity,  a  blind  force  in 
chemic  affinity,  a  blind  force  in  gravitation,  an  intelli- 
gent force  in  the  mind  of  the  horse,  and  an  intelligent, 
conscious  force  in  your  own  mind.  If  you  discharge 
the  electricity  through  the  water,  the  force  of  chemic 
affinity  is  overcome  by  the  electric  force,  and  the 
water  is  decomposed  into  its  original  elements  of 
oxygen  and  hydrogen.     If  the  circuit  is  complete,  the 


Persistent  Consciotisness  is  Immortality.       325 

electric  force  passes  on  into  the  horse  and  overcomes 
the  mind-force  of  the  horse  and  kills  the  horse. 

Thus  your  own  conscious,  mind-force  has  not  only- 
made  blind  electric  force  overcome  the  blind  chemic 
force  in  water,  and  the  impersonal,  organic  mind-force 
in  the  horse,  but  your  conscious  mind-force  has  per- 
mitted the  blind  force  of  electricity  to  go  free.  Can 
it  be  that  these  blind  forces,  managed  by  man's  con- 
scious force,  shall  be  imperishable  in  their  imperson- 
ality, and  man's  conscious  mind-force  that  manages 
them,  shall  not  be  imperishable  in  its  personality  ? 

But  notice,  it  was  your  personal  mind-force  that 
first  captured,  confined  and  then  liberated  the  force 
of  electricity.  Personal  mind  force  is  master.  It 
makes  electricity  dissolve  compounds,  carry  mes- 
sages, turn  wheels,  lift  weights  and  light  up  the  world. 
This  personal  mind-force  harnesses  gravitation  and 
makes  it  do  the  work  of  countless  millions  of  giants. 
It  compels  heat  to  work  the  engines  of  civilization  and 
even  to  evolve  electric  force  itself — in  a  word,  the 
personal  mind-force  of  man,  not  the  impersonal  mind- 
force  of  the  horse,  masters  all  other  forces. 

At  this  point,  let  us  resume  the  consideration  of 
the  persistence  of  conscious,  personal  mind-force  as 
a  soul-force. a 

3.  The  persistence  of  conscious,  personal  mind-force  is 
immortality.  Personal  mind-force  persists  as  personal 
mind-force.  That  which  supernaturally  exists  in  any 
form  supernaturally  persists  in  some  form.  Un- 
conscious things  such  as  vegetables  and  brute  ani- 

(a)     See  pp.  309-319. 


3 


26       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 


mals  change  their  form  and  disorganize,  but  do  not 
destroy  any  of  their  atomic  substance.  Conscious 
persons  change  their  substance,  as  from  the  physical 
to  the  psychical,  but  not  their  form.  This  change  is 
progressive,  not  destructive. 

The  argument  is  that  the  mind,  whether  of  man  or 
of  beast,  is  imperishable  in  the  persistence  of  force. 
We  claim  not  only  that  the  persistence  of  force  proves 
the  imperishablenessof  the  mind  as  force,  but  that  the 
persistence  of  consciousness  shows  the  mind  of  men 
to  be  individually  and  personally  imperishable,  and 
the  mind-force  of  the  horse  perishable  as  an  uncon- 
scious individuality,  but  imperishable  as  an  imper- 
sonal force.  Consciousness  immortalizes  the  individ- 
uality of  individual  intelligence. 

All  force  is  not  the  same  force.  To  our  observa- 
tion there  are  two  orders ;  first,  a  mind-force,  unde- 
rived  and  supreme  in  the  Unoriginated  Power — per- 
sonal, intelligent,  conscious,  and  dominating  all  below 
it;  and  second,  matter-force,  such  as  heat  and  gravi- 
tation, impersonal,  unconscious,  unintelligent  and 
secondary  to  all  force  above  it.  Scientists  say  now 
that  there  is  but  one  force  in  all  the  universe,  con- 
scious in  mind  and  unconscious  in  matter.  Though 
they  do  not  prove  this  unity  of  force,  yet,  admitting 
it  to  be  so  as  the  last  conclusion  of  science  and  for 
the  sake  of  the  argument,  even  then  the  unconscious, 
such  as  heat  and  electricity,  must  be  a  mode  of  the 
conscious,  having  its  basis,  as  Herbert  Spencer  says, 
in  Absolute  Being,  and  not  the  conscious  its  basis  in 
the  unconscious.  Even  if  all  force  is  but  eternal 
power  in  action,  conscious  in  mind,  unconscious   in 


Hoiv  is  Pesistence  of  Force  Proved.        327 


matter,  it  must  ever  go  forward,  but  never  backward. 
So  that  if  matter-force  cannot  be  annihilated,  neither, 
a  fortiori,  can  mind-force,  of  which  matter-force  is  the 
unconscious,  impersonal  mode. 

How  do  you  prove  that  any  force  is  imperishable? 
Scientists  prove  the  imperishableness  of  any  and  of 
all  force,  by  the  fact  as  claimed  that  its  quantity  is 
fixed  ;  that  is,  that  force  can  be  neither  increased  nor 
diminished,  neither  created  nor  destroyed.  Such  is 
the  theory  by  which  scientists  try  to  account  for 
phenomena  that  they  can,  as  yet,  account  for  as  well 
in  no  other  way. 

Herbert  Spencer  says a  '  the  persistence  of  force  is 
an  ultimate  truth  of  which  no  inductive  proof  is  pos- 
sible.' Youmans  says  '  it  is  not  without  its  difficul- 
ties, which  time  alone  must  be  trusted  to  remove.'13 
Grove,  Faraday,  Stewart,  LeConte  and  Bain  assume, 
rather  than  attempt  to  prove,  the  doctrine  of  the  con- 
servation of  force.  There  is  such  correlation  as  heat 
into  electricity,  and  of  electricitv  into  heat ;  but  we  do 
not  see  gravitation  correlated  or  transferred  into  any 
other  manifestation  of  force,  or  of  any  other  force 
into  gravitation.  Besides,  if  force  can  be  and  is  ex- 
haustively correlated  backwards  and  forwards,  how 
can  the  theory  of  evolution  be  true,  that  everything 
progresses  forever  ?  The  constancy  or  inconstancy 
in  the  quantity  of  force  depends  upon  whether  its 
source  is  personal  or  impersonal,  and  this  question 
of  source  must  be  first  settled.     Supreme  Will   may 

(a)     First  Principles,  Chap,  vi.,  §  59. 

(3)     Introduction  to  Cor.  and  Con.  of  Forces,  xiv. 


J 


28       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 


will  that  there  shall  be  what  we  call  force,  or  supreme 
Will  may  be  that  force  itself.  If  force,  personal  or  im- 
personal, be  the  Will  of  a  supreme  Being,  force  cannot 
be  a  fixed  quantity  ;  for  supreme  Will  cannot  be  a 
fixed  quantity  ;  and  so,  if  the  quantity  of  force  be 
fixed,  force  cannot  be  will  itself.  Supreme  Will  can 
will  all  things  except  to  will  that  it  will  not  will.  It 
is  true  that  the  Will  that  could  will  our  personal  wills 
into  existence,  and  yet  not  be  those  wills,  could  will 
impersonal  force  into  existence,  and  not  be  that  force. 
A  supreme  Will  may  will  that  our  mind-force  be  im- 
perishable ;  but  if  there  be  no  supreme  Will,  then  our 
mind-force  is  necessary,  and  must  be  imperishable. 
That  which  necessarily  began  in  the  past,  necessarily 
continues  in  the  present,  and  will  necessarily  [con- 
tinue forever.  Necessary  evolution  makes  a  neces- 
sary immortality. 

The  manifestation  of  impersonal  force,  that  is, 
force  manifested  in  things  rather  than  in  persons — 
such  as  the  blind  force  of  heat,  electricity,  or  gravi- 
tation— is  as  an  ocean  of  force  lifted  and  broken  at 
times  into  individual  waves  that  lapse  and  subside 
into  the  infinite  fullness.  Personal  or  will  force, 
originating  in  the  mind  of  an  Infinite  Person,  is  de- 
posited and  perpetually  correlated  in  the  wills  of 
finite,  conscious  persons.  If  a  Person  did  not  create 
force,  force  has  certainly  created  a  person  ;  for  man 
is  here.  If  there  be  no  God,  and  unintelligent  and 
unconscious  eternal  Force  created  everything,  then 
it  was  indeed  a  miraculous  leap  for  the  conscious 
force  manifested  in  every  man's  will,  to  come  up  out 
of  what  is  called  unconscious  force  lurking  only  in 


Quantity  of  Force  is  not  Fixed.  329 

matter.  If  unconscious  force  originated  everything, 
which  one  of  its  forces  did  the  work?  Did  uncon- 
scious gravitation  create  everything?  Did  uncon- 
scious electricity  create  everything?  Did  uncon- 
scious chemical  affinity  create  everything?  If  the 
quantity  of  force  be  fixed,  who  is  to  fix  it?  If  the 
quantity  of  force  is  fixed  it  is  infinite. 

It  is  more  logical,  and  not  so  difficult  to  suppose 
that  creative  Power,  in  originating  and  fixing  the 
quantity  of  force,  would  have  provided  an  infinite 
quantity,  than  to  suppose  that  it  would  have  experi- 
mented upon  the  possible  insufficiency  of  a  finite 
quantity.  If  nature  had  any  plan  to  which  it  invari- 
ablv  worked,  we  might  suppose  that  it  would  have 
known  exactly  how  much  and  what  kind  of  force  it 
would  need,  and  might,  with  good  reason,  have  fixed 
its  quantity  in  finite  limits ;  but  as  Biickner,  Vogt, 
Moleschott,  and  Haskell,  deny  that  there  is  design 
or  plan  in  nature,  it  could  not,  therefore,  know  how 
much  force  it  might  need  in  its  blind  work,  and 
might  well  be  expected  to  fix  enough  once  for  all, 
and  make  it  infinite.  Any  way,  nature,  in  the  prodi- 
gality of  its  works,  seems  to  be  quite  confident  of 
having  enough  stuff  and  force  to  keep  up,  and  even 
extend,  its  phenomena.  If  there  be  no  God,  the  quan- 
tity of  force  must  be  infinite  or  self-limited.  But  if 
any  say  that  it  is  not  infinite,  then  they  must  prove 
definitely  how  much  less  it  is ;  because  if  it  be  not 
infinite  it  may  be  zero,  and  vanish  entirely.  Force  is 
in  the  universe.  Those  who  assert  a  given  quantity 
must  define  and  prove  the  quantity.  The  fact  is,  no 
one  knows  much  about  this  thing  called  force.     The 


330       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 


definition  of  force  here  used  is  about  as  good  as 
any,  if  not  the  best ;  but  keep  in  mind  that  we  argue 
this  question  from  the  exclusive  standpoint  of  science. 

So  far  as  these  authorities  can  settle  it,  force  has 
its  basis  in  Absolute  Being.  If  this  be  so,  the  quan- 
tity of  force  is  not  necessarily  fixed,  but  may  vary 
with  the  decisions  of  His  omnific  will,  and  so  tran- 
scend the  domain  and  methods  of  science. 

Explain  it  as  we  may,  it  is  a  fact  that  all  real  ad- 
vances persist.  Nature  never  recalls  or  intermits  pro- 
gression ;  never  mistakes  the  end  or  the  means; 
never  changes  in  vain  ;  never  sees  a  reason  to  undo 
what  she  has  once  done ;  never  goes  down,  but  always 
upward  and  forward. 

So  much  for  phenomena  from  impersonal  nature ! 
And  yet  there  is  no  true  explanation.  The  mind, 
accustomed  to  abstraction,  is  the  dupe  of  an  illusion 
when  it  takes  laws  for  realities.  Laws  are  symbols 
of  order — of  Will ;   they  do  not  account  for  order. 

Mill  says  that  to  explain  one  law  of  nature  by  an- 
other, is  simply  to  substitute  one  mystery  for  another. 
We  can  no  more  assign  a  reason  for  the  more  general 
laws  than  for  the  more  partial.11  And  yet,  all  reason- 
ing that  proves  anything  for  science,  proves  more 
for  religion. 

For  Nature,  with  her  immanent,  necessary  instinct, 
does  not  perpetuate,  as  real  gains,  such  transforma- 
tions as  heat  into  electricity,  or  of  electricity  into 
heat ;  of  gases  into  rocks,  or  of  rocks  into  gases  ;  of 
minerals  into  vegetables,  or  of  vegetables  into  ani- 

(a)     Mill's  Logic,  p.  276. 


Brutes  have  Mind  but  no  Souls.  331 


mals.  In  these  ebbs  and  flows  of  matter,  these  work- 
ing correlations  change  everything  and  gain  nothing 
that  persists. 

Nature  advances  from  chaos  and  gains  organiza- 
tion;  she  advances  from  vegetable  life  to  animal  life. 
These  types  are  these  gains.  If  they  are  not,  what 
are  ?  If  we  mount  by  terraces,  is  not  each  terrace  a 
gain  in  altitude,  quality  of  atmosphere,  and  extent  of 
view?  Has  not  the  man  on  top  of  the  .mountain 
gained  much  over  the  man  at  its  base? 

The  man  at  the  top  has  gained,  but  not  the  brute 
in  any  grade,  for  whom  sublimity  is  in  vain.  It 
needs  no  lofty  tower  or  mountain-peak  to  enable  it  to 
study  the  stars  in  their  courses.  For  it  in  vain  the 
soft  influence  of  the  Pleiades,  or  the  face  of  Orion  or 
Arcturus.  It  aspires  not  from  nature  to  supernature. 
All  it  wants  is  food.  For  it  there  need  be  no  loom 
or  spindles.  It  has  appetites,  but  no  desires.  Its 
organization  is  low,  and  its  future  is  limited.  It 
never  acts  upon  any  ideas,  except  those  which  con- 
duce to  its  two  aims,  its  personal  well-being  and  its 
propagation  ;  consequently,  we  may  conclude  that  its 
brain  only  resolves  a  certain  class  of  forces,  and  that 
another  class  appreciated  by  men  are  not  cognizable 
by  the  brute. a  Like  the  collodionized  plate,  the  un- 
conscious self  registers  only  one  class  of  phenomena. 
The  beast  lives  for  itself,  for  its  animal  nature;  it  has 
no  other  pleasures,  for  it  has  no  other  nature.  A 
horse  is  indifferent  to  the  rainbow,  because  the  rain- 
bow in  no  way  affects  its  well-being.1"     The  human 

(a)     Baring  Gould's  "  Origin  and  Development  of  Religious  Ideas,"  51. 
(6)     Ibid,  5. 


33 2        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

mind  is  open  to  a  chain  of  pleasurable  impressions,  in 
no  way  conducive  to  the  preservation  of  man's  sen- 
sual being,  and  to  the  perpetuation  of  his  race.  He 
derives  pleasure  from  harmonies  of  color,  and  grace 
of  form,  and  from  melodious  succession  of  notes. 
His  animal  life  needs  neither.  He  is  conscious  of 
desires  which  the  gratification  of  passion  does  not 
satisfy,  for  they  are  beside  and  beyond  the  animal 
instincts.  Man  derives  his  liveliest  gratification  and 
acutest  pain  from  objects  to  which  his  animal  con- 
sciousness is  indifferent.  The  rainbow  charms  him. 
Why  ?  Because  the  sight  conduces  to  the  welfare  of 
his  spiritual  being.a  The  religious  instinct,  (which  is 
a  desire  to  follow  out  a  law  of  our  being)  is  the  feel- 
ing of  man  after  an  individual  aim  other  than  that  of 
his  animal  nature.1'  Brute  intelligence  is  not  a  con- 
scious intelligence,  and  therefore  no  gain. 

Does  the  the  artist  who  moulds  in  clay,  consider 
himself  to  have  gained  anything  by  the  image  which 
he  breaks?  or  the  painter  who  thinks  in  chalk,  any- 
thing in  forms  which  he  rubs  out  as  soon  as  finished? 
Can  nature  be  said  to  have  gained  anything  in  indi- 
vidualities which  she  ever  most  remorselessly  extin- 
guishes? She  makes  the  individual  crystal,  and 
dissolves  it  into  gas.  She  shoots  up  countless  blades 
of  grass,  and  lifts  up  the  forms  of  shrubs  and  trees, 
and  draws  them  back  dead  into  her  mysterious  work- 
shop. She  quickens  the  pulse  of  insects,  brutes  and 
birds  with  individual  life,  and  beats  them  down  again 
in    indistinguishable    dust,    leaving    in    the    universe 

(a)     Baring  Gould's  "Origin  and  Development  of  Religious  Ideas,"  5. 
{b)     Ibid,  61. 


Unconscious  Individuality  does  not  Persist. 


333 


neither  memory  nor  trace  of  their  individual,  imper- 
sonated existence.  How  do  we  account  for  this, 
destructiveness  of  nature,  then?  Nature,  as  the  sci- 
entists present  her,  uses  mere  grade  and  division  in 
her  manifestations,  only  as  a  working  convenience. 
Below  conscious  individuality,  which  we  call  person- 
ality, no  individuality  persists.  In  other  words, 
nature  does  not  regard  nor  prize  mere  unconscious 
individuality  as  a  real  advance  or  gain.  If  she  did, 
she  would  not  so  invariably  demolish  her  work.  We 
do  not  destroy  that  which  we  value.  If  nature  pro- 
gresses, she  does  not  hold  mere  individuality  to  be 
progress,  or  she  would  preserve  it.  We  cannot  pro- 
gress by  going  back  along  our  own  steps.  A  perish- 
ing man  on  the  mountain  top  has  gained  nothing. 

Altitude,  however  high,  whose  material  base  may 
at  any  moment  dissolve  beneath  the  feet  and  destroy 
him,  is  no  gain.  If  man  can  be  lifted  from  off  the 
mountain  top,  so  that  he  can  abide  aloft,  upheld  by 
'  Everlasting  Arms,'  whatever  may  crumble  beneath 
him,  then,  and  not  till  then,  can  he  be  said  to  have 
gained  in  the  movements  of  existence. 

Though  nature  had  made  individual  animals,  auto- 
matic and  intelligent,  it  had  gained  nothing  until 
it  gained  consciousness.  Why  should  the  '  neces- 
sary, immanent  instinct,'  of  which  Biickner  and  oth- 
ers speak,  having  progressed  so  far,  and,  as  they 
seem  to  think,  have  gained  so  much,  not  progress 
further  and  gain  more?  Why  should  it  stop  at  an 
unconscious  animal?  We  see  that  it  did  not.  We 
see  that  it  went  on  to  the  conscious  man.  Above 
conscious  man  there  may  yet  be  evolved  an  order 


334       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

as  much  brighter  than  conscious  man  as  conscious 
man  is  above  the  unconscious  horse.  It  is  not  impos- 
sible in  this  system  for  impersonal  force  to  be  used 
over  again  as  personal  in  a  personal  organization. 
Or,  why,  having  lifted  the  animal  upward  along  the 
terraces  of  phenomena,  and  placed  his  feet  in  the 
frozen  dust  on  the  mountain  top,  not  lift  his  feet  still 
higher,  and  endow  him  with  power  to  move  like  the 
stars,  in  individual  and  perpetual  glory,  above 
matter  ? 

It  is  said  that  an  atom  is  matter,  but  the  force  of 
gravitation  in  an  atom  pulls  from  the  centre  of  the 
atom.  In  imagination  peel  off  the  outside  of  that 
atom  until  you  have  got  down  to  the  centre.  You 
have  got  down  to  force,  have  you  not?  But  where 
is  your  matter?  You  have  your  force  which  must 
transcend  matter,  but  your  atom,  which  was  matter, 
is  gone.  Let  us  not  confound  matter  and  force. 
They  may  be  associated,  but  cannot  be  identical. 
The  man  in  the  saddle  is  not  the  same  thing  as  the 
horse  beneath  him,  which  he  guides  with  a  bit  and 
bridle.  Force  guides  matter,  but  is  not  matter,  unless 
a  thing  can  be  said  to  guide  itself,  when  it  is  not  itself, 
but  something  else.  What  is  there  so  attractive  in 
matter,  or  what  in  it  so  necessary  to  personality,  that 
man  must  be  chained  to  it  forever?  Blind  nature,  or 
'  immanent  necessary  instinct,'  knows  no  reason  for 
beginning  at  matter  more  than  at  mind,  or  for  stop- 
ping at  matter  or  at  mere  mind.  Why  should  it  not 
rise  and  progress  forever,  and  gain  forever?  If 
nature  began  at  matter,  why  should  it  not  go  on  to 
mind  as  we  see  it  did  ;    and  if  it  began  in  mind,  why 


Endless  Develop7nent.  335 

should  it  sink  back  into  mere  matter?  The  force 
that  has  brought  it  on  from  the  past  is  neither  ex- 
hausted nor  bewildered,  and  can  carry  it  on  in  the 
future.  This  rather  proves  that  all  matter  is  only 
manifestations  of  mind,  as  so  many  ancient  and  mod- 
ern philosophers  have  contended.  For  if  matter  is 
force  and  force  is  mind,  then  matter  is  mind,  and  so 
it  is  no  longer.  Individual  phenomena  are  then  only 
special  and  changing  thoughts. 

We  prove  by  admitted  principles  that  men  are 
more  than  a  race  of  animals.  It  is  contended  that 
nature  ever  progresses  and  gains.  Now,  the  mere 
animal  must,  according  to  this  theory,  be  improved 
upon,  and  so  on  to  the  summit  of  being.  If  blind  na- 
ture found  its  way  from  nothing  to  a  conscious,  rea- 
soning man,  we  can  be  quite  sure  that  it  knows  its 
way  to  an  omniscient  God.  If  a  Personal  Being  did 
not  create  nature,  nature  has,  in  man,  created  a  per- 
sonal being.  As  said  before,  there  is  a  God  at  one  end 
or  the  other  of  progress.  The  more  unconscious  things 
are  at  the  beginning,  the  more  conscious  they  must 
be  in  the  end.  Development  cannot  be  stopped.  If 
out  of  nihilism  nature  evolves  life,  why  should  it  not 
out  of  life  evolve  immortality  ?  When  nature  begins, 
what  is  to  stop  it?  If  it  creates  many  things  both 
in  kind  and  number,  it  is  seen,  in  all  that  we  ob- 
serve, to  preserve  the  best.  As  between  individuals 
and  types  and  forces,  is  it  not  according  to  its  most 
evident  way  of  working  that  conscious  mind-force,  as 
the  utilizer  of  all  manifestations  of  force,  should  sur- 
vive as  the  fittest  of  all  ?  Whatever  else  may  cease, 
we  cannot  suppose  that  consciousness  as  the  supreme 


336       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

fact  in  the  universe  can  cease.  Nature  never  inverts 
the  pyramid.  Why  should  conscious,  personal  mind- 
force  perish,  and  unconscious,  impersonal  matter-force 
survive  ?  In  what  is  the  immortal  power  of  the  one, 
and  in  what  is  the  mortal  weakness  of  the  other  ?  Is 
impersonality  superior  to  personality,  or  unconscious- 
ness to  consciousness?  Does  the  universal  thinking 
of  mankind  put  a  thing  above  or  on  the  same  level 
with  a  person  ?  Is  a  stone  superior  or  equal  in  the 
order  of  nature  to  Shakspeare,  or  a  vial  of  electric- 
ity to  David  and  Isaiah  ?  Is  blindness  the  honor  or 
the  fact  of  nature  ?  Is  a  mole  nearer  the  summit  of 
her  glory  than  is  an  eagle  ?  Is  the  idiot  more  the 
perfection  of  nature  than  Socrates?  Such  a  prefer- 
ence on  the  part  of  nature,  if  it  were  possible,  were 
the  choice  of  a  fool.  When  the  impersonal  force  de- 
fines itself  by  leaping  up  into  personal  or  will  force, 
or  unconsciousness  awakens  into  consciousness,  there 
would  seem  to  be  a  gain  indeed  worth  preserving,  if 
anything  is.  In  every  sense  and  for  every  movement 
of  nature,  the  personal,  the  conscious,  the  coherent, 
the  definite,  the  moral  would  be  the  fittest,  both  for 
worth  and  for  struggle. 

But  it  is  insisted  that  the  doctrine  of  the  conserva- 
tion or  persistence  of  force  does  not  prove  the 
immortality  of  the  individual  soul.  Herbert  Spencer 
says: a  '  By  the  persistence  of  force,  we  really  mean 
some  power  which  transcends  our  knowledge  and 
conception.  The  manifestations,  as  occurring  either 
in  ourselves  or  outside  of  us,  do  not  persist ;  but  that 
which  persists  is  the  unknown  cause  of  these  manifes- 
to)    First  Principles,  chap,  vi.,  §  60. 


Evolution  Necessitates  Immortality.         $37 

tations.  In  other  words,  asserting  the  persistence  of 
force  is  but  another  mode  of  asserting  an  uncondi- 
tional reality,  without  beginning  or  end.' 

This  must  refer  to  the  manifestation  of  blind,  unin- 
telligent, impersonal  force,  such  as  heat,  electricity, 
and  gravitation  ;  but  as  a  force,  mind  and  its  work, 
or  manifestation,  are  one  and  the  same.  The  mind  is 
conscious  that  it  is  a  power,  force,  or  cause,  unto 
itself ;  and,  of  course,  takes  no  knowledge  of  itself  as 
a  mere  manifestation,  from  any  cause  whatever, 
known  or  unknown.  In  reasoning  upon  the  immor- 
tality of  the  soul,  from  the  law  of  the  persistence  of 
type,  the  persistence  of  consciousness,  and  the  per- 
sistence of  force,  three  independent,  if  not  conflicting 
lines  of  argument  are  pursued  ;  and  we  might  give 
up  either,  if  the  sufficiency  of  the  others  is  admitted. 
These  arguments  are  either  all  true  or  all  false  ;  or 
one  is  true  and  the  others  false.  That  all  three  are 
true,  some  will  deny.  If  one  be  true,  it  matters  not 
if  the  others  be  false.  If  all  are  false,  as  is  assumed, 
the  dilemma  of  the  scientist  is  greatest  of  all.  Be- 
cause, as  we  know  the  soul  to  exist  now  as  a  supreme 
fact,  if  we  fail  by  either  or  all  of  these,  the  best  scien- 
tific arguments,  to  prove  the  immortality  which  we 
affirm,  then  they  must  prove  the  mortality  which  they 
affirm.  To  prove  that  anything  exists,  raises  the  pre- 
sumption of  its  perpetual  continuance,  under  any  and 
every  possible  change.  If  any  deny  the  presumption, 
they  must  prove  their  denial.  The  failure  to  prove 
the  immortality  of  the  soul  does  not  establish  its  mor- 
tality. The  existence  of  the  soul  in  life  is  admitted 
to  be  the  most  exalted  force  in  the  universe.     If  any 

22 


33%       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

admit  that  the  unconscious,  impersonal  force,  such  as 
electricity  or  heat,  persists,  though  its  presence  may 
be  concealed,  a  fortiori  they  must  admit  that  the 
greater,  more  intelligent  force  of  the  conscious,  per- 
sonal soul  must  persist,  though  its  presence  may  be 
concealed.  Disappearance,  in  neither  case,  is  de- 
struction. The  affirmation  that  it  ceases  to  exist 
after  death  must  be  proved  as  an  independent  propo- 
sition, by  the  one  who  makes  it.  To  say  that  we  have 
no  knowledge  of  it  after  death,  is  no  proof  that  it  has 
ceased  to  be.  Change  is  not  annihilation.  Force 
does  not  cease  because  it  changes  its  manifestations, 
or  conceals  its  presence.  When  heat  is  changed  into 
electricity,  no  force  is  destroyed.  The  traveler  is  not 
dead  because  he  is  out  of  sight.  Existence  does  not 
depend  on  manifestation.  Light  reveals  this  world, 
but  it  conceals  ail  others.  What  death  is,  no  one 
can  tell  another.  It  is  a  secret  for  each.  But 
science  proclaims  that  everywhere  within  its  search- 
ing vision  life  is  triumphant.  Reason  eagerly  ex- 
plores the  field  of  our  own  future  probabilities,  and 
revelation  certifies  and  glorifies  the  fact  of  human  im- 
mortality. Life  is  omnipresent.  No  part  of  this  uni- 
verse is  dead.  Life  is  triumphant.  It  must  be  the 
master,  or  all  things  would  end.  Life  is  continuous. 
The  one  living  grain  of  wheat  expands  itself  into  a 
hundred  lives.  Death  is  the  last  enemy,  and  life  the 
last  friend,  in  the  eternal  economy. 

But,  it  is  objected,  admitting  a  brute  to  be  a  mere 
impersonal  individual,  and  man  to  be  distinguished 
by  having  his  individuality  lifted  into  what  is  under- 
stood as  personal  consciousness,  and  admitting  that 


Aristotle s  Constructive  Reason.  339 

the  soul  of  man,  as  mind-force,  cannot  be  annihilated, 
it  is  still  contended  that  death  obliterates  its  individ- 
uality and  personality,  and  reduces  both  the  mind  of 
the  impersonal  brute  and  the  mind  of  the  personal 
man  to  the  same  impersonal  level  of  the  one  universal 
force.  It  is  contended  that  both  are  manifestations 
of  force,  and  are  reabsorbed  into  the  totality  of  all 
force.  This  doctrine  of  emanation  and  reabsorption 
was  taught  by  Aristotle  three  hundred  and  fifty  years 
before,  and  reproduced  by  Averroes,  an  Arabian 
Philosopher  of  Spain,  one  thousand  two  hundred 
years  after  Christ,  and  has  been  held  by  the  Hindoos 
in  all  ages.  Is  it  not  Herbert  Spencer's  theory,  too  ? 
With  Aristotle,  Constructive  Reason,a  as  distin- 
guished from  Passive  Reason,b  which  receives  the 
impression  of  external  things,  and  perishes  with  the 
body,  transcends  the  body,  and  is  capable  of  separa- 
tion from  it.  This  Constructive  Reason  is  one  indi- 
vidual substance,  or  universal  soul,  being  one  in 
Socrates,  Plato,  and  other  individuals.0  Each  has  a 
part  of  the  whole,  whence  it  follows,  according 
to  this  theory,  that  individuality  consists  only  in 
bodily  sensations,  which  are  perishable :  so  that  noth- 
ing which  is  individual,  such  as  sensations,  can  be 
immortal,  and  nothing  which  is  immortal,  as  the  uni- 
versal soul,  can  be  individual. 

{a)     Herbert  Spencer  calls  this  '  Absolute   Being,'  '  Unknown  Cause,' 

'Power,'  'Force,'  'Unconditioned  Reality,  without   Beginning   or  End.' 

The  Athenians  call  it  '  The  Unknown  God.' 

(/>)     Herbert  Spencer  calls  this  '  Manifestations  of  force  which  perish.' 
(c)     What  is  this  but  the  idea  of  One  God,  who  breathed  in  the  body 

of  man  the  breath  of  life,  and  he  became  a  living  soul,  as  taught  in  the 

Scriptures?     Gen.  ii.,  7. 


34-0       The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 


a 


This  will  answer  as  well  as  any  other  speculation 
to  account  for  the  perishableness  of  impersonal  indi- 
viduality ;  it  is  not  satisfactory  as  to  the  future  of 
personal  individuality.  Vast  is  the  difference  upward 
from  an  individual  thing  to  an  individual  person.  Any 
way,  the  theory  of  Aristotle,  as  reproduced  by  Aver- 
roes,  proves  too  much.  It  admits  that  this  Construct- 
ive Reason  is  one  indivisible  substance.  But  that 
indivisable  substance  is  joined,  in  man,  with  individ- 
ual sensations.  The  individual  sensations  die,  but 
the  indivisible  substance  is  reabsorbed  into  the  eter- 
nal Pleroma  called  Nirvana.  This  indivisible  sub- 
stance is  individualized  by  being  identified  with  hu- 
man sensations.  That  part  of  the  Universal  Soul 
which  is  in  man  is  all  in  man  that  can  have  sensations, 
and  therefore  in  these  sensations  is  individual.  But 
how,  according  to  this  theory,  can  it  be  immortal,  if 
it  be  individual?  If  individuality  destroys  immor- 
tality, and  immortality  destroys  individuality,  then 
the  constructive  reason  of  Aristotle,  and  even  the 
lauded  Nirvana,  of  the  Buddhist,  cannot  be,  because 
it  is  both  one  and  immortal. 

The  derived  cannot  emanate  from  the  underived  in 
the  sense  of  separation,  as  the  Buddhists  teach,  for 
that  would  diminish  the  infinite ;  nor  can  it  be  reab- 
sorbed into  the  underived  as  they  teach,  for  that 
would  increase  the  infinite.  A  square  is  still  a  square, 
whether  you  draw  diagonals  or  circles  within  it.  So 
the  infinite  as  to  itself  is  only  the  infinite;  its  mani- 
festations are  finite  only  as  to  themselves.  The  infi- 
nite circumference  focalizes  in  itself  as  a  finite  centre  ; 
supernature  centripetalizes  into  natural,  and  incon- 


Aristotle s  Error.  341 


ceivable  Power  is  pictured  in  perceivable  manifesta- 
tions. 

The  error  of  both  Aristotle  and  Averroes,  was  in 
antagonizing  immortality  and  personal  individuality. 
It  may  be  conceded  that  their  theory  was  plausible 
as  to  impersonal  individuality  ;  but  the  soul  is  immor- 
tal, according  to  science,  not  because  it  is  an  indi- 
vidual, but  because  it  is  a  force,  and  so,  supreme 
over  matter.  Above  all  other  force,  it  has  both  indi- 
viduality and  conscious  personality,  and  apart  from 
these  grand  distinctions  we  know  nothing  of  it. 

But  let  us  go  a  little  further,  and  see  where  this  ex- 
tinction of  all  individuality  and  personality  would 
land  us.  Suppose  a  soul  — a  part  of  the  universal 
soul — steeped  in  all  possible  wickedness,  to  die  in  the 
midst  of  all  its  vileness,  and  with  the  loss  of  its  indi- 
vidual sensations  and  personal  identity,  is  reab- 
sorbed in  the  great  abyss  of  Soul.  The  Buddhists  call 
this  abyss  Nirvana.  Now  this  part  of  the  Universal 
Soul  must  be  reabsorbed  as  it  is,  bad  ;  not  as  it  is  not, 
good.  Ink,  if  you  keep  on  dropping  it  long  enough, 
will  finally  blacken  the  ocean,  and  kill  all  life  con- 
tained in  its  illimitable  depths.  Suppose  this  absorp- 
tion to  go  on  for  countless  ages,  bad  spirits  after  bad 
spirits  taken  into  its  very  essence  ;  what  must  Nir- 
vana itself  become  after  feeding  so  long  upon  such 
food,  in  spite  of  the  good  spirits,  if  any,  that  may  go 
there  too  ?  Its  eternal  accretions  of  evil  make  Nir- 
vana a  hell.  Conscious  individuals  cannot  emanate 
from  an  unconscious  Nirvana,  nor  can  an  uncon- 
scious Nirvana  reabsorb  conscious  individuality. 
The  less  cannot  produce  the  greater,  or  absorb  the 
greater. 


342        The  Philosophy  of  the  Supernatural. 

In  the  soul's  loss  of  its  individuality  and  its  ab- 
sorption into  the  Infinite,  consists  its  horror.  For,  in- 
stead of  a  finite  consciousness  which  it  has  lost,  it  ac- 
quires an  infinite  consciousness  which  is  ever  reab- 
sorbing evil.  Every  soul  that  it  engorges  brings  in 
its  evil,  and  makes  Nirvana  the  cess-pool  of  the 
universe. 

In  the  philosophy  of  nature,  vestigia  nut/a  retrorsum 
— nature  takes  no  steps  backward.  Heterogeneity 
never  returns  to  homogeneity ;  the  effect  never 
returns  to  its  cause ;  the  stream  never  returns  to  its 
fountain. 

As  life  that  is,  is  from  all  life  before; 
So  life  that  is,  is  life  for  evermore.  ' 
Of  life  the  whole,  a  part  is  all  we  know; 
From  life,  a  part,  to  life,  the  whole,  we  go. 


Date  Due 

nf            " 

1A 

1 

3Q 

1         9 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Spei 


1    1012  010 


7  6826 


